Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Peter G. Capek)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Why Does AT&T Supply ISDN Instead of Local Telco?
Message-ID: <14802@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 90 05:19:54 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 26
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 832, Message 8 of 8


I saw somewhere recently a news article that reported a substantial
increase in the rate at which AT&T was filling orders for ISDN service.
This got me to thinking...

1) Why is AT&T, rather than my LEC, supplying ISDN service?  I suppose it
   might make sense for AT&T to supply "long distance" ISDN service, either
   to my LEC, or indirectly to me.  Apparently, I inferred too close a
   similarity between POTS and ISDN.  What's the truth?   Is there something
   about ISDN which makes it fundamentally different from POTS in a
   REGULATORY sense?

2) How does AT&T supply ISDN service?  Do they get the LEC to provide a
   leased line from my premises to one of their 114 #4 ESS'?  Or to some
   other switch which interfaces to their network in some other way?

3) (Unrelated to ISDN...) Why are LEC's called LOCAL exchange carriers?
   Wouldn't it make more sense to call them, for example, LATA exchange
   carriers, since a LATA is the limit of their (possibly multiple) transport
   area?  Similarly, why are IXC's called that?  They don't carry traffic
   between exchanges any more than LEC's do: but they DO generally carry
   traffic between exchanges which are further away from one another than
   the LEC's.


Peter Capek