Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1991 23:29:53 PDT From: John Higdon Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell Reply-To: John Higdon Message-ID: Organization: Green Hills and Cows Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu 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 442, Message 3 of 5 Lines: 73 On Jun 9 at 1:28, Bob Frankston writes: > Pac*Bell is able to provide some compelling features because it owns > the network. The issue is not simply one of pricing but rather the > fact that it can create the protocols it needs to provide the > services. In fact, many of the protocols are intranetwork protocols > that are generally available to telcos. Information and service bureau providers will tell you that they can beg, plead, demand, suggest, and cajole until they are blue in the corporate face, but Pac*Bell could not care less about a given protocol or service enhancement until IT needs it. Then it will sluggishly make it available to outside parties at a cost that usually seems out of line. For example, service bureaus can offer stutter dial tone just like The Message Center -- IF they are willing to install and pay for a dedicated data line TO EACH SWITCH in which they wish to provide the feature. > A common theme of my messages is that these protocols must be exportable. > Unfortunately, protocols generally means CCITT and a design cycle the > guarantees irrelevance. But when they are exportable, they are almost always skewed to the regulated telco's advantage. > In the spirit of naive optimism I'd like to see a law that allows > telcos to offer these services but with the condition that they > services be done with an arms length sub and that any protocols used > would be made generally available to third parties. Given that the resources for completely auditing an RBOC do not exist, I would submit that there is no such thing as "arms' length". "No connection", "not affiliated with", "no common ownership", now THAT is arms' length. > Making these protocols available external raises many network > integrity and performance issues, but these issues must be faced > otherwise the Judge Greene error is for naught. It is the cornerstone of the whole divestiture exercise. If there is to be an expectation of fair competition, everything must ultimately become available externally. I thought I would share with all of you a little analogy. Let's say I owned a bus company (that competed with other bus companies) and I also owned a bridge that carried a major highway. I have decided that my bus company is going to "win". To do that, I put luxurious busses on my routes, increase my runs per hour (to make it convenient to riders), and lower my rates to the point that anyone would be stupid to ride the competition. What a boon to consumers. Excellent bus service at cheap rates. Only an ogre could attack that, right? But these things cost money. My busses don't pay their way as it is and now with my increased service the cash flow is really lacking. What do I do? I increase the tolls on my bridge to an astronomical figure. The people who cross the bridge have no choice; they must cross my bridge to get to where they are going. They must pay my toll. Now I have the money to run my superior bus company. I put the competition out of business. Now, not only must people cross my bridge (and pay anything I demand), but they must ride ONLY my busses and pay whatever I now decide to charge. The competition? They sold their busses to me (at distressed prices) before they went bankrupt. We won't be hearing from them any time soon. Far fetched? Have you ever heard of the Golden Gate Transit Authority? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !