Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab)
Message-ID: <2226@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 16 Dec 89 18:46:33 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Lines: 27
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 579, message 2 of 8


In article <2161@accuvax.nwu.edu>, goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com writes:

> What PacTel isn't allowed to do is sell the
> information.  They can sell the access to third parties who provide
> the information.  But Bells are common carriers, who carry information
> for a price, and not information providers.  The court has ruled, in
> effect, that if they were to be both, they'd have too much clout to
> compete with other information providers.

The problem with this "neat" breakdown -- telcos are information
common carriers, therefore they can't be information providers -- is
that the telcos also "own" information that they could potentially
"sell".  (Of course, the question of who really owns information is
still very thorny...)  Should you restrict the telcos from selling,
say, online white pages service?  If you do, the service is never
going to be available -- no one else has the information to offer it.
Should you make the telco give the service away?  It costs money to
provide it -- where does this money come from?

Conceptually, the information common carrier idea is a nice one.  But
it raises some unintended effects in its implementation...


David G Lewis					...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej
	(@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center)
			"If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."