Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!agate!telecom-request From: jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly Message-ID: Date: 20 Mar 91 07:00:45 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: Silvar-Lisco, Inc. Lines: 60 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 222, Message 2 of 8 In article motcid!linneweh@uunet.uu.net (Louis Linneweh) writes: > sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: >> While I concur with Pat's reasoning, his conclusion that it would be >> better to see the monopoly continue is puzzling. What demonstrable >> benefit is there in a regulated monopoly, vs. the open market? > In a word: standards. De facto, perhaps; obsolete, quite often; > archaic occasionally; but usable standards none the less. For the > public and even for telephony equipment suppliers. They just couldn't > change the system fast enough toget a marketing advantage. Hmmmm. Hmmm. They just wouldn't change the system. They didn't need a marketing advantage. They owned the market. > I used to know how to place a long distance call from a pay phone > virtually anywhere in the country. I used to feel confident my kids > could call me from those same phones. That is simply no longer true > today. Sure, a lot of committees could set standards and a lot of > laws could enforce them. But they don't and they are not effective. I happen to disagree with Pat concerning the need for the breakup of the Monopoly. However, I happen to agree with him that the results were terrible. The breakup was orchestrated with sledgehammer and a dull chisel, instead of a microscope and micromanipulators. COCOTs are one result. Public telephones are a Public Service, as well as a Consumer Service. The Mother Forgot Judgement *ignored* the Public Service aspect and treated public telephones completely as a consumer convenience item. > So far the basic telephones have remained compatible. At least I > haven't called anyone I wasn't able to talk to and hear in return. > But I worry about ISDN, Open Network Architecture, and the burgeoning > features available. Will I always be able to talk to the person I > called? OK, I'm exagerating, I suppose. None the less, I don't > always know how to make a call from a pay phone anymore. That's a > terrible step backward! I honestly hope and believe you'll never have to worry about any of that except the pay phones. Uh, well maybe you'll pick the wrong long distance carrier and hear a new intercept: "Sorry, that long distance carrier is no longer in service, please call your business office." > That's my reason for supporting the regulated monopoly of the phone > company. They're my reasons for wishing it hadn't happened THEN, with THAT JUDGE. But ATT was too monopolistic, the only changes, even on low levels were happening due to court action. Remember, without court intervention you probably would still have 1200 baud modems only supplied by ATT. Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com Silvar-Lisco, Inc. +1.408.991.6115 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086