Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin
Message-ID: <12384@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 20 Sep 90 19:24:22 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 72
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 662, Message 10 of 10


 
> The whole intent of divestiture, as I remember it from Judge Greene,
> was to break up the AT&T monopoly. This may have succeeded in part
> with the long distance carriers; it certainly went nowhere with the
> local telco, which at least for me is the area that affects my phone
> service the most.
 
  The divestiture was forced by AT&T's abuse of its monopoly power and
position, namely cross-subsidization that was expressly to avoid and
ruin competition. Existing monopolies are not expressily forbidden,
though they may be regulated, the formation of new ones may be
blocked.
 
> I want to have a choice of subscriber loop carriers; If I don't like
> Pac Bell, I want to be able to get dial tone from Bob's Fone Company
> if I so choose.  Until that free market choice exists, the One Big
> Monopoly of AT&T has simply been replaced with Several Small
> Monopolies.
 
If local telco's engage in the same practices as they divesify, they
may be subject to the same accusations and actions.
 
> If phone service is in fact a "public utility", then why break up AT&T
> in the first place? If it is not, and should simply be yet another
> service provided in a free market economy, then why do the RBOC's
> still have a monopoly on phone service?
 
Not being a lawyer or sematicist, I'm not sure what you mean by a
"public utility", but it's not a publicly owned utility, in the sense
that some cities or counties have municipaly owned power, gas, etc.
As a private corporation, it has a fudiciary duty to serve the
interests of it's stockholders, not the public at large. It has some
moral and civic duty for the latter, but it's the responsibility of
the regulators to define and decide what those are, not the company.
 
> A lot of good has come of divestiture, but I think even more good
> would arise if our friends in Congress and the FCC would dispense with
> what I see as half-measures aimed at perpetuating the monopoly of the
> local telco. The place divestiture would benefit subscribers most is
> at the level of the local telco, not only through market-driven
> pricing, but also through market-driven services, such as data and
> video, to name two.
 
It's not within the traditions or constitution to 'nationalize' (or
staticize, or whatever the equivalent would be) private companies.
They can be restricted in operation and penalized for violations, but
that is not the same thing as just breaking them up. The violations
must be pervasive and intentional before that remedy is permitted.
 
> Anticipating complaints about an "unfair advantage" had by the RBOCs
> in the event of their deregulation, I raise a point made in a previous
> posting in the Digest, namely that there is ready-made competition for
> the telcos in the form of the local cable television company.

> Of course, that would require that the CATV carriers not be
> monopolies...!
 
With regard to this and Bob's Fone Company, if the means of
distribution, namely the wires, cables, etc. were municipaly installed
and owned, like water, sewers (and some gas and electric), then your
competition for dial tone would be practical. Unfortunately, until
some community somewhere takes such an approach or it becomes a state
law, don't hold your breath.
 
Then, of course, since history repeats itself, we can look forward to
"slamming" (e.g. MCI thread) by local tone providers :-)
 

Jeff Sicherman
jajz801@calstate.bitnet