From: robinson@stout.geo.brown.edu (Darrin Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Open market versus monopoly, was Re: Obtaining ISDN
Followup-To: alt.dcom.telecom
Date: 19 Nov 1992 18:23:08 GMT
Organization: Brown University, Providence RI 02912
NNTP-Posting-Host: stout.geo.brown.edu

In article <1992Nov19.155205.24190@telebit.com> bjork@telebit.com (Steven Bjork) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.001920.15847@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> res@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rich Strebendt) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.160614.10428@telebit.com>, bjork@telebit.com (Steven Bjork) writes:
>
>[my other agonizings deleted]
>
>>> AT&T is so cash rich they have nothing better to do than buy
>>> computer companies and pay off lawyers. I'd much rather see that
>>> money go towards fiber to the demarc, or not taken in the first
>>> place (ie, rate reductions).

Rate reductions... they have to go to the FCC for approval... AT&T is
still regulated.

>
>>What has AT&T got to do with the rest of your posting?  As you said
>
>If you'll notice the wording in the above paragraph, they *still* make
>so much excessive profit, they seem to have nothing better
>to do than hire lawyers. I'd rather they hired engineers...

AT&T make *excessive* profit... I don't think so... AT&T has a capped
ROI (Return-on-Investment) and can't make more than XX% profit... last
I knew it was 12%.  Besides... isn't profit the reason why companies
exists... well excluding the philanthropic companies  ;->

>
>I will completely agree that USA seems better off than the rest
>of the world with regards to telco rates.
>THAT IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR *ANY* EXCESSIVE RATES.
>
>Thats as specious an argument as those that say "Well I drive
>a lot of miles so that's why I got a ticket." Mileage has
>nothing to do with obeying laws. If you obey the traffic
>regulations, you will not get a ticket. Now for accidents,
>of course driving more miles exposes you to higher risks
>from the other guy, thus increasing risk of accident.
>
>Thanks for your comments, wouldn't want to think no one
>cares about these issues. :)
>
>Perhaps the less than palatable rates I pay to call across
>SF Bay are PacBell's way of "repaying" me for the fact
>that my local calling zone is a flat rate.
>
>Do other telcos have lower interzone rates if they have 
>time related charges for local calling zone calls?
>
>(followups to alt.dcom.telecom, this is really not
>an isdn issue)
>
>--Steven

I think the BabyBells (and LECs) need to run FIBER to the DEMARC, Well,
jurisdictionally they control wire past the LDCs POP.  AT&T has developed
a method for bringing the cost of running FIBER to the DEMARC for residential
customers extremely close to that of copper.  It becoming more and more easy
for the LECs to do this anyway...

NyNEX, at least NET, one of their companies, in my home town have all these
CTs all over the place!  They can start replacing the wire on the poles with
FIBER soon... or should I say under the ground as the plan is.  They already
have a FIBER ring around the city of Newport and people like the Navy are
already taking advantage of that... if you want to place the burden on AT&T,
then speak with Judge Greene and have him repeal his 1982 decision.  AT&T's
long distance rates today are over 48% lower than they were in 1982!

Darrin

P.S. Oh... I no longer work for AT&T!  ;->

 .  Darrin E. Robinson (DER31)         Hamnet   N1LLV  146.700-, 146.880= MHz
/|  Systems Programmer II              Internet darrin@mit.edu
\|  Dist. Computing & Network Services          robinson@porter.geo.brown.edu
 |\ MIT Information Systems            ICBMnet  41 29 24 N  71 18 48 W (NPT)
 |/ 1 Amherst St. - Rm E40-338         NASAmail derobinson@nasamail.nasa.gov
 .  Cambridge, MA 02319                AT&Tnet  (617) 253-0131