Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: So What Next? Message-ID: <15522@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 19 Dec 90 20:36:54 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 54 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 891, Message 6 of 7 On Dec 18 at 1:52, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [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. This is where your argument falls apart, Pat. I challenge you to name one single problem with the MFJ that isn't a result of improper or inadequate regulation. You say that AT&T should have been left intact and that some regulatory board would "make" them treat competitors fairly? Would it also "make" it release all specifications, practices, procedures, and technical standards so that the competition (and we ordinary folk) could make best use of the telephone network? I give you a living, contrary example. Pac*Bell. In every area that Pac*Bell has been allowed to compete with others, the company has pulled out every sleazy stop and managed to skirt the regulators. In cellular, Centrex marketing, equipment vending, you-name-it, I could give you a list of borderline tactics that unfairly harm its competition. IMHO, Pacific Telesis should be absolutely and positively prevented from participating in any business activity other than providing local exchange service. Owning that network gives it a supreme advantage in almost any technical arena you can name. > An impartial panel would > ajudicate disputes regards technical standards or other reasons AT&T > might resist interconnection. Oh, you mean something like the CPUC? We in CA can daily see how it would be if Mother still owned the local exchange system. Pacific Telesis has become the new AT&T, and the CPUC seems to be completely powerless to do anything about it. The company sells Centrex by messing up the prospective victim's trunks on its PBX and then claiming that "Centrex is maintain in OUR office and never has these problems." They provide free landline calls to Cellular One (partially owned by PT), while denying them to GTE Mobilnet. PacTel intimates that if equipment comes from them, somehow the customer's exchange service will be a little more reliable. The list (of verifiable case histories) goes on. Instead of blaming the MFJ for all of these inconveniences, why not ask why the appropriate regulatory board isn't doing its job? AOS, COCOTs, 900 IP, all of these things fall under someone's jurisdiction. So seeing how these boards are falling down on the job, what makes you believe that your "impartial panel" would do any better? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !