Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!mintaka!olivea!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucselx!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Least Cost Routing
Message-ID: <13990@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 90 10:18:52 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 18
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 759, Message 3 of 7


  Is there a regulatory reason why the local companies couldn't
provide a 'least cost' routing service for long-distance calls, where
they select the company with the cheapest rates for a given call from
rate information they have in a database ? Couldn't they charge for
such as service ?
 
  Expecting consumers to keep up with rate complexity and changes
seems to me to somewhat discourage *real* competition (except for
knowledgeable high volume accounts) on price and instead encourage the
silly and often misleading commercials and slamming activity.
 
  Or is there some self-interest reason why the local companies
wouldn't want to do this ?
 

Jeff Sicherman
jajz801@calstate.bitnet