Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!telecom-request From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly Message-ID: Date: 11 Mar 91 09:50:00 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 33 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 198, Message 2 of 9 rhc@agate.berkeley.edu writes: > With all facilities under one manangment, reconfiguration to > compensate for malfunction, disaster, or traffic overload could be > swifter/easier. But as was to sharply demonstrated in the Bay Area 'quake of 89, diverse facilities is a plus, not a minus. Calls on AT&T were a joke; the facilities were completely unavailable. This could have been due to intentional blockage, but the fact is that I was able to communicate with my clients while out of the area thanks to several cheaptone OCCs that had no problem whatever completing my calls. Likewise, while dialtone was not forthcoming from Pac*Bell offices, many were able to complete emergency calls via cellular, which in the case of GTE Mobilnet was working very well. The point is that if there are alternate means of communication, a calamity that befalls one will not affect another. IMHO, Pac*Bell failed miserably during the October, 1989 incident. No one would second that statement more than Centrex customers who found themselves without even inter-departmental communications for days. In this case, those with PBXs (an alternative means of communication that does not depend on telco COs for internal connections) found that they could at least call down to the mail room or up to the executive suite. Handling of emergency conditions is not a valid argument against LEC competition. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !