Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!fortune!brower
From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower)
Newsgroups: net.consumers,net.politics,net.misc
Subject: Re: Victims of Equal Access (?)
Message-ID: <5204@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 14:28:54 EST
Article-I.D.: fortune.5204
Posted: Mon Apr 22 14:28:54 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Apr-85 06:33:38 EST
References: <1605@ut-ngp.UUCP> <1468@hao.UUCP> <391@ihu1m.UUCP>
Reply-To: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower)
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.consumers:2193 net.politics:8630 net.misc:7886
Summary: 

>>   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

I should have the right to choose my service company, and I have, its AT&T.
If I wanted my service changed to some other corporation, I should ask to
have it changed, not have it changed by fiat.  It isn't that I am undecided,
it is that I don't want to be bothered with any more paperwork.
-- 
Richard A. Brower		Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower