Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: K_MULLHOLAND@unhh.unh.edu (KATH MULLHOLAND) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access Message-ID: Date: 26 Feb 91 16:38:39 GMT Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mr. News) Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 52 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 163, Message 6 of 8 Originator: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: hub.eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu > [Moderator's Note: But the fact that you cannot access AT&T via 10288 > is not AT&T's fault. It is a greedy private operator who is denying > access illegally. What is to prevent the same greedy operator from Not necessarily ... in the case of the AT&T system 85, it *is* AT&T's fault that you cannot access 10288. The System 85 does not allow access to any 10xxx number. We depend on 95-xxxx numbers (which we route over FX lines to an equal access office, by the way) to get our users to MCI or Sprint. If we want to switch to another carrier for our 0+, we would be forced to block calls to AT&T, even though we do not want to. The University of New Hampshire is not offered any commission for our inter-Lata 0+ traffic by AT&T. We would, and probably will, take up Sprint's offer for commissions, but our users may resent not being able to use AT&T. We don't see an option. For now,this is just a nuisance. If the FCC chooses to rule that Universities are aggregators, we are in for major problems unless AT&T breaks down and offers 950 or 800 acccess. Question: Why does AT&T want to block themselves out of this business? Is it not as lucrative for them as for their competitors? Another Question: Does anyone have an opinion on how likely the FCC is to regard Universities as aggregators? Our opinion is that we are not because the new law defines aggregators as those providing service to "transient" customers. Our feeling is that University students, being resident enough to register to vote, are not transient. What do the rest of you think? Kath Mullholand UNH, Durham NH. [Moderator's Note: But registering to vote is a more solemn obligation, and not to be taken lightly. Voting is considered important enough that the law is interpreted as liberally as possible in order to avoid the slightest hint of discrimination. The idea is to make it as easy as possible to vote. Choosing a president is somewhat more important that choosing a long distance carrier, or so the thinking goes. I don't think AT&T is deliberatly locking themselves out of the 800/950 business because it is not lucrative for them. I think they are doing it to force the issue on 10xxx; their thinking being that if 10xxx access becomes an absolute, bar-none requirement on all switches, they will recapture a lot of revenue denied to them now anyway, thus making the whole long distance calling industry a lot LESS lucrative to the marginal operators out there now. And I sort of agree. Let's all play by the rules the 'others' tried so hard to install -- equal access and all -- and see who wins and who loses. I think you already know the answer. PAT]