Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!CS.UCLA.EDU!gast
From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hinsdale - Thursday update
Message-ID: <12629@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 24 May 88 23:48:29 GMT
References: <8805121812.1.137@cup.portal.com>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: lanai!gast@seismo.CSS.GOV (David Gast)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 35
Approved: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu


In article <8805121812.1.137@cup.portal.com> Patrick_A_Townson@cup.portal.COM writes:
>
> [discussion of the fire at IBT].
>Pagers, beepers, cellular service and similar functions are largely restored
>and the restoration will be complete by the evening of May 15.
>

It seems to me that order of the restoration of services is slightly
mixed up.  Certainly, emergency service should be restored first, but
why should cellular service get priority over regular phone lines?

IBT's primary responsibility is to provide telephone service to the
people and businesses within its service area.  The fire has obviously
disrupted its ability to provide telephone service.  Fixing competetive
service first seems to indicate further abdication of IBT's
responsibilities.  (No one on duty, no fire fighting equipment, etc are
others).  This abdication will be only more severe if IBT asks the rate
payers to pay for the damage.

I can see the next ad for IBT's cellular service:

		Buy a cellular phone today.  Don't be without service
		after the next fire.

If IBT does not fix cellular service, then cellular customers could
go to other companies, but regular customers do not have the option
of switching phone companies.  It seems unfair.

These opinions may only be my own, but I hope the Illinois Public
Service Commision (or whatever its name is) adopts similar feelings.

David Gast
gast@cs.ucla.edu
{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!gast