Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!ut-sally.UUCP!uucp From: uucp@ut-sally.UUCP (Unix-to-Unix Copy) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom Message-ID: <8705100206.AA12786@sally.utexas.edu> Date: Sat, 9-May-87 22:06:04 EDT Article-I.D.: sally.8705100206.AA12786 Posted: Sat May 9 22:06:04 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 10-May-87 19:04:15 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 159 Approved: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu Path: ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!nrcvax!ihm From: ihm@nrcvax.UUCP (Ian H. Merritt) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Divestiture Summary: Humpty Dumpty is dead! Keywords: Breakup, Humpty Dumpty, Bell system, Divestiture, Terrorist Message-ID: <908@nrcvax.UUCP> Date: 8 May 87 17:30:14 GMT References: <8705050405.AA27325@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Reply-To: ihm@minnie.UUCP (Ian Merritt) Distribution: world Organization: The Frobboz Magic Telephone Co., Inc. Lines: 145 In reply to: <12299601869.15.S.D-REUBEN@KLA.WESLYN>: > Although the divestiture has allowed long distance rates to drop >precipitously, which is a bonus of the breakup, everything else is not. Yes, but remember that the rates were falling, albeit not as fast, before the breakup commenced, so even here, the extent of the benefit isn't entirely clear. > > I see little or no difference between the rates of the alternate long >distance carriers and those of AT&T. Moreover, the quality of the alternates is >simply horrendous, and with the implementation more and more fiber optic routes >on AT&T (especially new ones like: >New York- San Mateo County (415) and most of 418, Connecticut to San Francisco >County (415), New York/CT to Texas (214), New York/CT to Atlanta (404), >and NY/CT to South Carolina, Virginia, Chicago, Detroit as well as the "older >links, like NY/CT - Mass), I am VERY willing to pay the penny per minute more >on some calls so that I can use AT&T's fiber optics (believe me, once you talk >via fiber you won't want to go back to anything else!) Never mind the specific routes. The point that AT&T is now (if I may coin a term) 'glazing' their network is significant in itself. If they are making even a modest effort to maintain their previous standards of excellence in engineering and planning, the will do a far more professional job of it. I hope they are doing better with their network plant than they were able to do with subscriber termination equipment (phones). At least until recently, maybe still, they have been advertising their telephones as if they were as well built as 15-20 years ago, when in reality they are the same cheesy garbage you can pick up in designer pink & purple at your local supermarket. > > The point here is not to compare various types of LD trunks, but to say >that competition really hasn't brought the great degree of choices that it >was supposed to. The alternate LD co's have a few fiber optic trunks, and do a >few things well, but they are more or less the same (although some are >definitely on the LOW end!), and aren't much of a real choice. In other words, >their rates are marginally lower than AT&T's, but not to a significant extent, >and the quality of service they provide (even US Sprint, which doesn't seem to >use as much fiber as they promise in their TV ads) is at times drastically >lower than AT&T's, so much so that for the "average consumer", there is really >not much of a choice being offered. Well, I wouldn't blast Sprint quite the the extent you have. I do find that when I get an all fiber connection, the quality is ok. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and the other carriers' quality is dismal. Worse, call completion via the alternate carriers will not soon improve. Even as they install CCIS-like interoffice communication internally, they are still subject to the delay of the local CO sending both the destination and the calling number via MF signalling over the trunk, for every call, and they still dial out on a subscriber-like line at the terminating end, necessitating their DTMFing the 7, 8, 10, or 11 digit destination number only to have it partially repeated in MF tones between the local CO at their destination tandem and the actual terminating office. AT&T only has the originating CO send the destination, and it contracts with the local TELCOs for AMA service. Once at the local 4E, the call traverses the AT&T network in under 1 second, and takes only a minimum time to MF out the few digits needed to complete the call from the 4E in the destination city to the terminating CO. Overall completion time from last digit dialed is usually about 2 seconds, vs. about 7 to 20 for the other guys. In a recent TV spot, AT&T makes the claim that their calls complete twice as fast. It's much better than that. I suspect they said twice because no matter what the other carriers do, until they interface with the local CO's as AT&T does, they will not get better than about 4 to 7 seconds, thus AT&T can use the ad for some time. Incidentally, the kid in the ad, I think by the name of Roger, I recently recognized as being played by my cousin. > > Previously, if you wanted cheap long distance you would use someone like >MCI, who didn't have such great connections, but who was significantly cheaper >than AT&T (as AT&T was regulated then). >Now, MCI is just like Sprint who is just like Allnet (etc....), all of which >are slightly below AT&T in price and very far below in transmission quality >and optional services. Thus, before you had a choice, and you gave up quality >but saved a lot of money. Now, you can give op quality, but fail to realize any >significant savings. So what good did all this do? Once again you have grouped sprint with the rest. In terms of the design of their network plant, they are no better than the others, but their attitude toward quality is massively better and they are starting to pull away in terms of overall service. Still, they are as yet no match for AT&T in overall network performance. What good did all this do? It made the general public more aware of their telephone as part of a business and not something to be taken for granted. It confused (and still confuses) the majority of the telephone using public. And it has served to increase our overall long distance capacity. BIG DEAL. I share your view that we shouldn't have pushed Humpty over the wall; I was against it from the beginning. Now that we're stuck with it, we must accept that the King's horses and Men aren't even interested in collecting the pieces much less reassembling poor Humpty. Let's stop lamenting our fate and see what we can build out of the wreckage. > > Moreover, the divestiture is generally more expensive for the consumer. >If you don't make a lot of long distance calls, you are probably paying more >for service now then you did when it was still the Bell System. Sure, now you >call call coast-to-coast for $7 per hour, but if you don't make many long >distance calls, you are paying more in terms of "access fees" for a service >you are not really using. Obviously, this reflects a more accurate appraisal >of what the the costs for local vs. long distance service are. Yet the costs >of this more "accurate appraisal" make it difficult to see if such a method for >measuring phone service is worth it. FCC terrorism is the only explanation for this. Look at their recent activities under Mr. Fowler. I believe he has, as his name implies, fowled the organization. > > Moreover, why break up the Bell System if all that was required was a >more sensitive pricing system? And if this means that I have to dial 0 for >a local operator and 00 for a LD operator, or if it means that to fix a trunk >my local co. has to argue with AT&T about it for 4 weeks, or if it means that >my local Crossbar is now takes 5 seconds to complete a call after I finish >dialing (Touch Tone) when it used to go through right away, and if it means >that I have deal with two companies (my BOC and AT&T) who don't like each other >anymore, and if it means that my local BOC has to spend money to DUPLICATE >Calling Card and operator equipment that is already in place under AT&T (which >I will ultimately pay for)...and....(whew!), then when it comes right down to >it, was divestiture worth it? No. But it's done (sigh). In 10 years, the dust will have settled and we'll be back on track. ISDN standards may be the hidden order in what is now a terrible mess. > > As far as I can see, the cost of divestiture is far greater, both in >economic terms and, more importantly to me as a customer, in terms of SERVICE >(remember that word?? :-;), than whatever small gains it has achieved. It is >for that reason that I said I would >like to have to Bell System put back together again.... As would I, but even if we could, it could never be the same. > > -(thanks to those who struggled through this long post....!) > > -Doug >