Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!sunil
From: sunil@ut-ngp.UUCP (Sunil Trivedi)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.consumers
Subject: Re: Victims of Equal Access (!)
Message-ID: <1663@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Apr-85 03:36:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1663
Posted: Sun Apr 28 03:36:36 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Apr-85 00:08:36 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712
Lines: 61
Xref: pepe net.politics:2978 net.consumers:745


 {From jak@talcott}
>   				As to what should be done to those
>who do not express a preference, I think that their first long distance
>call should be channelled to an operator who would ask them to designate
>a company.  If this is infeasible, then certainly the load should be
>spread among the several comanies randomly.  If you really don't care,
>then it won't affect you.  If you care, send in a postcard.

I don't believe the point is whether I or you care, the point is
whether all groups will be able to comprehend and make a decision
that will be in their best interests.  Consider the case of those
who are handicapped.  Being assigned a telco different from their
regular one could cause problems as quality is not the same nor
is it expected to be the same after Equal access.  Sure they could
always go back to AT&T, but for handicapped people this may not be
so simple.

 {From woods@hao}
>  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.

I find it hard to believe that everyone is expected to absorb new
currents instantly.  Don't forget it took quite some time for
people to get used to Zip Code (as the USPS ads ought to tell you),
so why do you assume that everyone will quickly grasp the conseq-
uences of Equal Access.  A device that was considered uncomplicated
and fairly trouble-free is now been made very complicated.  Ignorance
should not be an excuse for all, but for good number of people, the
new "Communications Age" will be a nightmare.  Also consider the
problems of those whose knowledge of English could be an obstacle;
even for those whose "mother tongue" is English.

 {From san@peora}
>  In some areas it is already in place, example Orlando, Fla.
>  If someone does not specify a particular carrier then AT&T is the
>  default carrier. That's the way it works here.

I would only hope that could have happened elsewhere.  This sharing
of the undecided is going to help the small local "Long Distance"
company who just opened an office and leased some lines from AT&T
or MCI.  I've had "service" with one such here.  Their equipment
must have been purchased from a shady guy (as the line was extremely
poor). In fact their equipment had trouble noticing disconnections
so I was charged for 5-30 minutes of calling when I may have been
using their line for 30 seconds.  Remember, when Equal Access comes
here, that company is going to get some customers by default.  I'm
not saying that MCI, GTE/Sprint, or the others are like that one,
but that people ought to have the right to be lured away but not
kidnapped!  Don't you think that companies that also have local
service (like GTE) would want to get their customers on their long
distance companies?  Thus Equal Access will surely have victims!

					  Sunil Trivedi
					sunil@ut-ngp.ARPA
				    ...!ut-sally!ut-ngp!sunil