Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!mintaka!telecom-request From: johns@scroff.uk (John Slater) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Local Competition - "Bypass Service" Message-ID: Date: 11 Mar 91 17:22:01 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Reply-To: John.Slater@uk.sun.com Organization: Sun Microsystems UK Lines: 30 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 7 of 9 In article , cyberoid@milton.u. washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: |> Fans of competitive local telephone service should beware the example |> of British Telecom, which used the existence of the incipient but |> never seriously competitive Mercury Telecom as the rationale for its |> total deregulation (or nearly so). Mercury, with all its hype and |> smoke and mirrors, provided just the excuse BT needed. Now Britain |> has a monopoly with power to set its own rates, offer service at its |> discretion, and generally set telecom policy for the entire nation. |> When pressed on its often criticized performance, BT answers, "For the |> disgruntled, there's always Mercury. (Hah-hah.)" Huh? Mercury competes with BT on long distance, not local service. That's certainly the case for private users. Large businesses can rent dialtone from Mercury, but they do this largely to save money on long distance (they get even better discounts than private users via 131, I believe). And what's this about "total deregulation"? My posting last week talked about the imminent licensing of other LD carriers and dialtone rental from cable TV companies, but it's all in the future. Mercury _has_ been seriously competitive : it's forced BT to introduce a whole new charge band for domestic calls (B1), which "coincidentally" applies to all of Mercury's cheapest routes. John Slater Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office