Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!bu.edu!telecom-request From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Alternate Cellular System Message-ID: Date: 21 Feb 91 08:04:00 GMT Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 31 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 143, Message 2 of 10 Craig Ibbotson writes: > I believe this alternate cellular system is NOT PCN but actually a > third carrier in each city. That is correct. And it will not be a cellular system in the classic sense, but will be an alternative to cellular service. The cellular providers have been lobbying overtime in the halls of Congress to attempt to get legislation passed that will block the FCC from approving this alternate system. You can understand the cellular providers' position. As a person who worked on the engineering of some of the first applications, I heard all the behind the scenes glee about how operating a cellular system would be a license to print money. Charge what you like, no competition, and like Burger King, everything would be your way. This has turned out to be somewhat true: PUCs essentially let the providers set the rates and considering the demand, two carriers per market is hardly competition. Now, enter the alternative. The FCC has indicated that one of the reasons to introduce this service is to bring cellular prices down. The traditional cellular providers can already feel the dollars leaking out of their pockets. And what do you do in this country when you feel threatened by the competition? Why, you follow the lead of AT&T and you go to Congress for relief. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !