Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!telecom-request From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum Message-ID: Date: 22 Jun 91 17:57:13 GMT Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom11.477.1 Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 28 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 477, Message 1 of 11 Robert Jacobson writes: > This all goes to show that the market works imperfectly. With or > without public intervention, it seems we're on our way back to > monopoly or, at best oligopoly/duopoly. Perhaps, because in this particular business, that is the natural order of things. The "market" can only function where there is informed, unrestriced choice by the consumer. In the case of AOS, the customer is neither informed (usually by design of the AOS), nor does he always have a choice. Also remember that an AOS is NOT a long distance company. It is a reseller. Some of them claim to be "value added" resellers, but none of them own any networks. Some of them, such as Telesphere, may have a leased network (no actual ownership), but most simply route over a major carrier's facility. The original poster complained that without a level playing field we would have only three long distance companies in a few years. If you consider ownership of the network a requirement for being a long distance company, then that is virtually true now. The rest (including the original poster's company) are, as Mr. Goldstein put it, bottom feeders. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert)