Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: davidb@pacer.uucp (David Barts)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: So What Next?
Message-ID: <15460@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 16 Dec 90 23:58:58 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 59
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 885, Message 9 of 10


The Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: I agree with your premises. So what next? The
> industry will get a lot worse before it gets better, believe me.  PAT]

Hmmm.  How about:

Slimy AOS's getting even slimier.  Now they're in on the slamming game
too.  Charges even more inflated than before.  "Yes, Mr. Barts, we
realize that you deny calling our 800 number and requesting our
service.  However our records show that we followed FCC-approved
telemarketing practices and that you did."  "But 29.73 for a five
minute call from Seattle to Pasadena?!?  I could call *JAPAN* for five
minutes on ATT and pay less than that!!"  "Sorry, our records show you
requested our service.  The moment you picked up your phone and
dialled `1` you entered into a voluntary contract for long distance
service with us.  Now send us the check for last month's charges of
$256.34 if you wish to protect your credit rating.  >click<"

An AOS calling itself the "Emcee Eye Service Corp."  They specialize
in slamming MCI customers.  Naturally, their 1-700-555-4141 recording
sounds just like MCI's (surprise, surprise, isn't it a shame that MCI
subscribers have to wait for sticker shock in the phone bill before
they can tell they've been slammed).

The local telco selling an "insert caller ID of your choice" service.
So I get a harassing call at 3am, and do a return*call and get
connected to 1-900-TOO-MUCH.  Ding, $75.00 please.

I agree that the old Bell System needed some reforming.  However IMHO
the MFJ was blindfolded surgery with a chainsaw when a simple
appendectomy was all the patient needed.

Silly me, I keep forgetting.  The purpose of the US phone system is no
longer to provide the best service to the greatest number of people,
its goal is now to maximize profits, and no more.  Guess I need to
reform these outdated, deviant opinions of mine ;-). 


David Barts			Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA
davidb@pacer.uucp		...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb


[Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I quite agree the MFJ (whatever that
means around here :) wink! wink! ) was a bit of an overkill.  Throwing
the baby out with the bathwater, one might say. The judge would have
been more ethical had he allowed AT&T to stay intact while at the same
time authorizing unlimited competition *in all forms of phone service*
 -- local, long distance and equipment sales -- and ordering AT&T/Bell
to interconnect with all competitors fairly. An impartial panel would
ajudicate disputes regards technical standards or other reasons AT&T
might resist interconnection. It was completely unfair of the judge to
rip off AT&T of a century's worth of experience and investment in
telephony. He should have said to the others, "Yes, you may compete,
and AT&T is forbidden to refuse interconnection at any level.  Spend a
hundred years in the business as they have done and see if you can do
as well or better."  *That* would have been the fair way.   PAT]