Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihu1m.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihu1m!gadfly
From: gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly)
Newsgroups: net.consumers,net.politics,net.misc
Subject: Re: Victims of Equal Access (?)
Message-ID: <391@ihu1m.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Apr-85 09:53:30 EST
Article-I.D.: ihu1m.391
Posted: Thu Apr 18 09:53:30 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Apr-85 00:28:43 EST
References: <1605@ut-ngp.UUCP> <1468@hao.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.consumers:2181 net.politics:8564 net.misc:7867

--
> > 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... 

Not necessarily.  After all, AT&T served everybody before the breakup.
Thus, AT&T sees it as unfair to have customers arbitrarily wrested away.
Competing companies are free to woo customers with promises of better
deals or better service, but why should they simply be handed a share
of the market?  Remember, AT&T wasn't handed the long-distance market--
they *made* it.  Alas, the government has always had a hard time
distinguishing fair from punitive.
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  18 Apr 85 [29 Germinal An CXCIII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7188     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken   *** ***