Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!asgb!hao!woods
From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: net.consumers,net.politics,net.misc
Subject: Re: Victims of Equal Access (?)
Message-ID: <1468@hao.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Apr-85 18:44:37 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1468
Posted: Tue Apr 16 18:44:37 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 08:10:58 EST
References: <1605@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.consumers:2175 net.politics:8555 net.misc:7863

> Agreeing that it may be considered unfair to "give" all
> those "free" customers to AT&T, I feel that the consumer should
> have the right not to have his service changed without his per-
> mission. The telephone company and the long distance carriers have
> been telling customers of the Equal Access and its implications.

  This about sums it up. Yes, it is unfair to give all the undecideds
to AT&T by default. But, the consumer *does* have the right to not
have his service changed! All they need do is specify that they wish
to retain AT&T! Seems simple enough to me. Indeed, consumers *have*
been informed of the coming changes, so there is no excuse for someone
to whom which company they use matters not to so specify. They've
had plenty of time.

--Greg
-- 
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
       		        !hao!woods

CSNET: woods@NCAR  ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
   
     "Please don't dominate the rap Jack, if you got nothing new to say..."