
 
 
TELECOM Digest     Wed, 26 Apr 95 21:46:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 212
 
Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson
 
    Re: NYNEX Voluntarily Agrees to Competition (pkcarroll@aol.com)
    Re: NYNEX Voluntarily Agrees to Competition (Bradley Ward Allen)
    Re: Competition, RBOCs and All That (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: Competition, RBOCs and All That (Tim Gorman)
    Re: Competition, RBOCs and all That (John Levine)
    Re: Competition, RBOCs and All That (Frank Atkinson)
 
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the 
moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
 
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
 
                 * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu *
 
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 500-677-1616
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
    Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu 
 
Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.
 
***********************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              
*
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    
*
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   
*
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-
*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 
*
***********************************************************************
 
Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
 
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
That's true.  Nynex signed an interconnection agreement with MFS in NY
and Mass.  The agreement includes number portability.  This will be
done initially via call forwarding which will be a bit troublesome
since not all features will work transparently.  It's still better
than having to change your number.
 
------------------------------
 
key)
 
 
In article <telecom15.209.10@eecs.nwu.edu>, Jonathan_Welch <JHWELCH@ecs.
umass.edu> wrote:
 
> Pat, I was still half asleep this morning, so you might want to get
> more pertinent from another source, but WBZ radio in Boston reported
> that NYNEX voluntarily agreed to open up to local competition.  A
> competing company's name (MFS?) was mentioned, and the story pointed
> out that one's phone number wouldn't have to be changed.
 
MFS aired an ad for local service two Saturdays ago.  I immediately
called the local numbers in the white pages.  Finally tracked the
right people down on a weekday during business hours.  I ordered an
MFS line last Wednesday.  Switchover paperwork sent in Friday.  Was
supposed to receive call from technician discussing details of
installation already, but am leaving constant voicemails with
salesperson who is not returning calls.  She did inform me that the
entire process takes a few weeks, some of which is waiting for NYNEX
to release the phone numbers to MFS; I don't know why I haven't
received the call from the technician I was promised.  Insider informs
me that "MFS and NYNEX are basically run by the same types of people."
 
I have this inkling that the $14.50 per month which "includes all the
same features as NYNEX for this one price" will save me a lot of
money, but we still haven't discussed how much a local call costs.
This is even if I do get the lines in the first place.  At least the
installation is free.
 
The number will be the same one I have now with NYNEX, some other
place (Pipeline or Phantom, an ISP, forget which one) mentioned that
there is some sort of forwarding that happens from the NYNEX number to
the MFS number, as they were mentioning their switchover.  They
mentioned that some numbers are "owned" by NYNEX and others "owned" by
MFS.  Whatever. She said caller-id will work, as will call-forwarding
and call-waiting.  Why are all the calls from her office "Out Of
Area"??  Time will tell.
 
Sigh.  Well, I dunno.  I figure having at least a little more option
is good.  The arrangement is to be that the copper from my place to
the NYNEX telephone CO is the same, and from there it's MFS equipment
co-located with the NYNEX building.
 
My ISP is inquiring with both MFS and MCI about their entries into
this area.  MCI denies any involvement when I call them, but I'm sure
that they are actually involved since my ISP is talking to them too.
 
Also I think Teleport is doing some things.
 
Someone about a year ago mentioned there's already a couple dozen
companies gearing up to do local telephone service in Manhattan.
 
Quite frankly, I can hardly wait ... if only to see what happens, but
I'm hoping things will get better.
 
------------------------------
 
 
 
lars@spectrum.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) writes in TELECOM Digest V15 #205:
 
LJP> No the issue is not that the RBOC offers busy/no answer forwarding,
LJP> but that they price this service by itself higher than the 
voicemail
LJP> offering that includes it. THAT is predatory pricing.
 
Tim Gorman <tg6124@tyrell.net>:
 
TG> This thread started off with NYNEX not even offering CFBDA.
TG> Now we have progressed to the point where it is priced higher
TG> than the voicemail by itself.
 
TG> Just what is the truth here? Are we even comparing apples and
TG> oranges? Do customers with voice mail have to also buy CFBDA
TG> from NYNEX? If so, then what is the problem?
 
I MUST APOLOGIZE for jumping in without having read the start of the
thread; I was addressing the larger issue of predatory pricing in
general. I have been informed by several that NYNEX does not offer
busy/no answer forwarding.
 
TG> If not, then has this been addressed to the PUC? Has the cost
TG> documentation for voice mail been reviewed by the PUC? Is this
TG> service even priced based on cost plus contribution or is it
TG> priced based on value of service? If priced based on
TG> value of service that is a PUC decision. Railing against the RBOC
TG> for a regulation decision gets nowhere although it may allow venting
TG> emotions - which might be beneficial for those involved.
 
Seen from the sidelines few PUCs seem to proactively regulate the
communications industries. The California PUC has even gone to the
extreme of asking the legislature to relieve it is duties of telecom
oversight because the commisioners admit that they do not understand
the industry and the issues.
 
Since the regulation is usually drafted by telco staff, it is not
altogether misdirected to vent anger at them for basing tariffs on
what they feel they can get away with rather than on their perception
of public benefit.
 
LJP> A public service commission that understands the issues and wants
LJP> to foster competition will insist that unregulated services -- like
LJP> voicemail -- are not offered by the LEC itself, but by an arms-
length
LJP> subsidiary which has to purchase the switch support features from 
the
LJP> regulated LEC at the same price as the competitors.
 
TG> I think we are still running into a problem defining what the
TG> difference between regulated/unregulated and
TG> competitive/non-competitive is. I don't believe voice mail is
TG> an unregulated offering but rather a competitive offering.
TG> There are worlds of difference between the two. If it truly is
TG> an unregulated offering then there ARE certain safeguards that
TG> I'll bet all RBOC's have to obey - especially in accounting
TG> practices.
 
I must confess ignorance to this distinction. Would I be correct in
assuming that a competitive offering may be offered through either the
regulated or the unregulated side of the telco? And that the classifica-
tion as competitive is based on the presumption that any underlying
network services required to implement the service are available to
competitors at a price close enough to cost to allow a level playing
field?
 
TG> Your plan may sound reasonable but the reality is that this idea
TG> is 20 years too late. It may have worked shortly after Carterfone
TG> was decided but there is not a single area in the business today
TG> that is not competitive already.
 
I suspect that the word "competitive" is used here in a different sense
than in the paragraph above. The LEC network ("the local loop") is
not competitive in any sense of the word for 90+ percent of subscribers.
 
TG> This dooms such a plan from the beginning. And before anyone says
TG> local competition doesn't exist I would suggest they talk to
TG> organizations like the State of Kansas and some of the bigger
TG> office complexes in various states. As I have stated on here before,
TG> I can point out to you at least two business in the
TG> state of Kansas alone that use 5ESS switches for their PBX's!
TG> Anyone on their campus' gets service from them.
 
These are not competitive local telcos. Like rural telcos they are
(maybe poorly regulated) monopolies within their territory. I'll bet
that tenants in the buildings you mention probably do not have the
choice to go with another access provider. Nor do these alternative
providers have an obligation to serve all comers in the city where they
do business; they are free to serve only those accounts they deem
profitable.
 
TG> So, in essence, what you have proposed is a regulated wholesaler
TG> in a market that will soon have exactly no use for a regulated
TG> wholesaler. Unless, that is, you want to provide a government
TG> subsidized boost to competitors that can not or will not get their
TG> own funding in order to enter the market.
 
TG> I say government subsidized because that is what will happen
TG> sooner or later. This wholesaler is going to have rather thin
TG> profit margins. Thin margins means major problems in capital
TG> financing in our markets. Inability to finance capital improvements
TG> means government intervention if you want to maintain
TG> viability.
 
While I look forward to seeing the first real competition in the local
loop as the cable television companies start to offer telephone service,
I am not yet convinced that this will benefit the larger subscriber
community. While I think the urbanized areas (with CATV service) cover
about 60% of the population, and while I think the duopoly service will
lower rates in many (most ?) of those areas, it will almost certainly
lead to higher rates for the last 40%.
 
The "Rochester plan" of a regulated wholesaler of wire plant and 
switching
makes no sense to me. Is that what you are referring to above?
 
I believe in a distinction between "basic service" and "enahnced 
service"
and whenever the regulated monopoly gets into "enhanced services",
inequities abound.
 
 > The prior poster also said:
 > >> There's no technical reason why all three of those
 > >> features can't be offered fairly to all comers
 > >> (even stutter dialtone, which is controlled
 > >> from outside the CO now, since telco voicemail
 > >> isn't built into the switch.
 > >> I believe that PacTel offers it as an overpriced
 > >> ONA feature. No, I don't have the order code.)
 > >> And they price all this at about half of what the
 > >> independents charge, even though it's technically
 > >> more complex. Doesn't that seem a teensy, weensy,
 > >> itsy bitsy little bit predatory?
 
LJP> I agree with this.
 
TG> What you have agreed with is a statement that the more technically
TG> complex a service is the more costly it should be. Are you really
TG> sure that is what you want to agree with?
 
I agree that there is no reason why these features cannot be offered
fairly to all comers. That is indeed the idea of the ONA mandates.  I
do not agree that it is technically more complex for PacTel to build a
voicemail service using the ONA attachment features than it is for an
outside vendor.
 
If the interconnection services needed to build the voicemail product
are available under ONA, the price for these features must be
allocated on the cost side of the telco's own voicemail product. If
the telco's voicemail gets a free ride, and can be priced based on a
low "customer perceived value" while the required components are
priced high to the competitors, the combination is predatory.
 
LJP> For a competitor to provide a voicemail service equivalent to the 
one
LJP> offered by the LEC, they need to have the LEC provide:
LJP> - forward on busy/no answer
LJP> - remote control of stutter dialtone
LJP> If the telco charges as much for those supporting features as they 
do
LJP> for the service that includes them, I would call it predatory.
 
TG> I think the operative term here is "IF". What we really need
TG> is some accurate pricing information and service descriptions
TG> in order to decide whether or not this accusation is true.
 
Are you saying that you agree that if such pricing occurs, then it
predatory and should not be allowed? If so, we would be almost in
agreement, and we could proceed to an evaluation of facts: Does such
pricing indeed exist.
 
LJP> In my book, the IXCs access charges should be the same as the price 
of a
LJP> local business call. The IXC is a business, as far as the LEC is
LJP> concerned. The LEC's subscriber is placing a call to the IXC 
(assuming
LJP> for the moment 950-xxxx access) and on the terminating end, the IXC
LJP> is placing a call to the terminating subscriber. In most places, 
the
LJP> access charges are 2-3 times the local business call rates. This is 
not
LJP> a fair price. It seems reasonable to allow for a higher access 
charge
LJP> on the originating end to pay for the database processing to record 
PICs
LJP> for 1+ dialing, so long as 950-xxxx access is still available at 
the
LJP> basic charge, though.
 
TG> Toll for the price of local? You bet.
 
Read again: Toll ACCESS for the price of local.
 
TG> That is exactly where this market is going.
TG> The problem is that the IXC's are going
TG> to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the real
TG> world. A consortium of IXC's just today took out a full page ad
TG> in several major newspapers condemning SWBT for it's
TG> monopolistic practices. Guess what the monopolistic practice
TG> being condemned is? LATA-wide flat rate calling.
 
Are you saying that SWBT has expanded the local calling areas everywhere
to whole LATAs? Or that SWBT has defined "calling plans" that the IXCs
cannot match because SWBT are charging more in access fees?
 
TG> So on the one hand the IXC's are complaining about having to pay
TG> too much for access charges and on the other hand fighting truly
TG> competitive service offerings tooth and nail. What I hope to see
TG> happen someday is that the RBOC's will be allowed into the interLATA
TG> markets and then we can see some really competitive offerings -
TG> how about nationwide flat rate calling?
 
Once there is true competiotion in local access, the LECs will be let
loose. But allowing LECs to buy marketshare in the long distance
business and pay for the losses with money earned in a monopoly
home market is not in the interest of the consumer.
 
 
Lars Poulsen   Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM
Rockwell Network Systems Phone:        +1-805-562-3158
7402 Hollister Avenue   Telefax:      +1-805-968-8256
Santa Barbara, CA 93105  Internets: designed and built while you wait
 
------------------------------
 
 
 
lars@RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) writes:
 
SNIP: (numerous lines concerning whether NYNEX tariffs CFBDA)
 
> I MUST APOLOGIZE for jumping in without having read the start of the
> thread; I was addressing the larger issue of predatory pricing in
> general. I have been informed by several that NYNEX does not offer
> busy/no answer forwarding.
 
NYNEX may not offer this on a tariffed basis. This does not mean it is 
not
available on a special arrangement.
 
> Seen from the sidelines few PUCs seem to proactively regulate the
> communications industries. The California PUC has even gone to the
> extreme of asking the legislature to relieve it is duties of telecom
> oversight because the commisioners admit that they do not understand
> the industry and the issues.
 
This is not the fault of the RBOC's. The issues are NOT that difficult
to understand. There are lots of people who do understand them. What
is more likely is a lack of political will to make hard choices and
decisions by the commissioners and then suffer the flack. The answer
most certainly is NOT the breakup of the RBOC's into tiny, function
oriented separate companies.
 
> Since the regulation is usually drafted by telco staff, it is not
> altogether misdirected to vent anger at them for basing tariffs on
> what they feel they can get away with rather than on their perception
> of public benefit.
 
Regulation is most certainly NOT usually drafted by telco staff. Telco
staff prepare tariff filings, cost documents, and position papers. PUC
staff review these documents, recommend changes they feel are
 



necessary to balance both the RBOC and consumer needs, and determine
their own positions. This is all then given to the commissioners to
decide. If the commissioners don't understand the issues perhaps they
should be looking at the qualifications of their staff memebers.
 
Listen to what you are saying above. Does Jiffy Lube worry about
"public benefit" when setting the prices for their oil changes? Or do
they worry about setting the prices high enough to make an adequate
net profit while setting them low enough to meet the competition? What
is your rational going to be when the local market IS opened up
totally for competition? Are the RBOC's still to be held to pricing
for public benefit or will they be allowed to act as other competitors
and price for stockholder benefit? It is essential that this question
be answered and understood by all BEFORE full local competition is put
in place. There are risks associated with abandoning the regulated
monopoly philosophy for a competitive marketplace philosophy. Do we
want full, free, and fair competition or do we want a government
allocated market share scenario?
 
> LJP> A public service commission that understands the issues and wants
> LJP> to foster competition will insist that unregulated services -- 
like
> LJP> voicemail -- are not offered by the LEC itself, but by an arms-
length
> LJP> subsidiary which has to purchase the switch support features from 
the
> LJP> regulated LEC at the same price as the competitors.
 
> TG> I think we are still running into a problem defining what the
> TG> difference between regulated/unregulated and
> TG> competitive/non-competitive is. I don't believe voice mail is
> TG> an unregulated offering but rather a competitive offering.
> TG> There are worlds of difference between the two. If it truly is
> TG> an unregulated offering then there ARE certain safeguards that
> TG> I'll bet all RBOC's have to obey - especially in accounting
> TG> practices.
 
> I must confess ignorance to this distinction. Would I be correct in
> assuming that a competitive offering may be offered through either
> the regulated or the unregulated side of the telco ? And that the
> classification as competitive is based on the presumption that any
> underlying network services required to implement the service are
> available to competitors at a price close enough to cost to allow a
> level playing field ?
 
Most people do have a problem with this. Public coin is competitive
yet it is not offered by a separate subsidiary. Operator services is
competitive, at least within the industry itself, yet it is not
handled by a separate subsidiary. Centrex is competitive with PBX's,
yet Centrex is not handled by a separate subsidiary. Landline POTS
service is certainly competitive with cellular POTS service in todays
market, yet landline POTS service is not offered by a separate
subsidary. Private lines, including facilties, are competitive today,
yet private lines are not offered by a separate subsidiary.  All of
these are most certainly competitive. All are still regulated.
Normally, you will only find unregulated offerings being offered by a
separate subsidiary.
 
Most of what the RBOC's do are going to be regulated for a LONG time.
Competitive, regulated services should NOT be required to be offered
via a separate subsidiary.
 
> TG> Your plan may sound reasonable but the reality is that this idea
> TG> is 20 years too late. It may have worked shortly after Carterfone
> TG> was decided but there is not a single area in the business today
> TG> that is not competitive already.
 
> I suspect that the word "competitive" is used here in a different 
sense
> than in the paragraph above. The LEC network ("the local loop") is
> not competitive in any sense of the word for 90+ percent of 
subscribers.
 
Oh, but the local loop IS very much competitive today. Or do you mean
DIAL TONE? MFS, Teleport, TimeWarner, Multimedia are already VERY
active in competing in the local loop. The number of people who have
access to this competition is growing exponentially every day. In any
case, the actual percentage is irrelevant unless you ARE interested in
artificial allocation of the markets. Competitors are going to go
where the money is. There will ALWAYS be a percentage of customers who
don't have much competitive choice. Go see how many customers in
Mantey, Kansas have a choice of grocery stores.
 
For dial tone, within the year you will see a large growth in the
competitiveness of intraLATA toll competition with the advent of
dialing parity between the RBOC's and the IXC's. It is already a
reality in Michigan. The commissions in the various states now looking
at this are wringing their hands in agony because of the questions it
will raise about the subsidies they have left in place with intraLATA
toll subsidizing local service -- thus leaving the RBOC's in a very bad
competitive posture. Consumers are not going to be happy when their
local bills go up when these subsidies start to change.
 
> TG> This dooms such a plan from the beginning. And before anyone says
> TG> local competition doesn't exist I would suggest they talk to
> TG> organizations like the State of Kansas and some of the bigger
> TG> office complexes in various states. As I have stated on here 
before,
> TG> I can point out to you at least two business in the
> TG> state of Kansas alone that use 5ESS switches for their PBX's!
> TG> Anyone on their campus' gets service from them.
 
> These are not competitive local telcos. Like rural telcos they are
> (maybe poorly regulated) monopolies within their territory. I'll bet
> that tenants in the buildings you mention probably do not have the
> choice to go with another access provider. Nor do these alternative
> providers have an obligation to serve all comers in the city where 
they
> do business; they are free to serve only those accounts they deem
> profitable.
 
These ARE competitive local telco's. This is the definition of
competition.  This is no different than Walmart taking Kmart customers
away! Do you somehow think MFS is under any obligation to serve anyone
who calls them? Heck no, they are totally free to decide when and
where they invest their money and, therefore, with whom they do
business. If the fiber they lay just happens to go by IBM, NCR,
Boeing, and GM but misses AtoZ Rentals, the local Taco Tico, the Dew
Drop Inn, and the local NAPA Auto Parts store are you going to class
this as non-competitive?
 
You need to take a close look at how you are applying definitions
here. It would appear you are being very selective in what you
classify as competitive in order to merely justify your argument. An
apartment owner who buys a PBX and provides local service is certainly
a COMPETITOR of the local telco whether the apartment dweller has any
other choices or not.
 
> TG> So, in essence, what you have proposed is a regulated wholesaler
> TG> in a market that will soon have exactly no use for a regulated
> TG> wholesaler. Unless, that is, you want to provide a government
> TG> subsidized boost to competitors that can not
> TG> or will not get their own funding in order to enter the market.
> TG> I say government subsidized because that is what will happen
> TG> sooner or later. This wholesaler is going to have rather thin
> TG> profit margins. Thin margins means major problems in capital
> TG> financing in our markets. Inability to finance capital 
improvements
> TG> means government intervention if you want to maintain
> TG> viability.
 
> While I look forward to seeing the first real competition in the local
> loop as the cable television companies start to offer telephone 
service,
> I am not yet convinced that this will benefit the larger subscriber
> community. While I think the urbanized areas (with CATV service) cover
> about 60% of the population, and while I think the duopoly service 
will
> lower rates in many (most ?) of those areas, it will almost certainly
> lead to higher rates for the last 40%.
 
Join the club. There isn't any other way around it. When you move to a
competitive market place supply and demand rules. You, at least, have
the honesty to admit it. There are many who won't. They think they can
have the best of all worlds -- a utopia. Unlimited profits for the
companies at no cost to the consumer. It won't happen.
 
> The "Rochester plan" of a regulated wholesaler of wire plant and 
switching
> makes no sense to me. Is that what you are referring to above ?
 
Yes. There are some good arguments to be made for it. But it will just 
turn
into a government subsidized provider for high cost areas sooner or 
later.
 
> I believe in a distinction between "basic service" and "enahnced 
service"
> and whenever the regulated monopoly gets into "enhanced services",
> inequities abound.
 
Sorry, this just doesn't cut it. Who determines basic and enhanced?
Dual tone MF signaling used to be an enhanced service but not anymore.
Frame relay used to be an enhanced service but it is pretty common
place now. It has even reached Kansas in pretty high volume. :-) I
think what you really mean to say is that you want low priced basic
service for all - by government fiat if necessary. A much different
concept with a different implementation. If there are inequities you
need to define from where they come. Is it because high volume
purchasers can get price breaks? You are going to have a hard time
overcoming this basic economic fact.
 
>       > The prior poster also said:
>       > >> There's no technical reason why all three of those
>       > >> features can't be offered fairly to all comers
>       > >> (even stutter dialtone, which is controlled
>       > >> from outside the CO now, since telco voicemail
>       > >> isn't built into the switch.
>       > >> I believe that PacTel offers it as an overpriced
>       > >> ONA feature. No, I don't have the order code.)
>       > >> And they price all this at about half of what the
>       > >> independents charge, even though it's technically
>       > >> more complex. Doesn't that seem a teensy, weensy,
>       > >> itsy bitsy little bit predatory?
 
> LJP> I agree with this.
 
> TG> What you have agreed with is a statement that the more technically
> TG> complex a service is the more costly it should be. Are you really
> TG> sure that is what you want to agree with?
 
> I agree that there is no reason why these features cannot be offered
> fairly to all comers. That is indeed the idea of the ONA mandates.
> I do not agree that it is technically more complex for PacTel to build
> a voicemail service using the ONA attachment features than it is for
> an outside vendor.
 
I agree. But when you are comparing prices also be sure to compare ALL 
costs
involved in those prices. The biggest company doesn't always have the 
highest
costs.
 
> If the interconnection services needed to build the voicemail product
> are available under ONA, the price for these features must be 
allocated
> on the cost side of the telco's own voicemail product. If the telco's
> voicemail gets a free ride, and can be priced based on a low "customer
> perceived value" while the required components are priced high to the
> competitors, the combination is predatory.
 
You are mixing apples and oranges. Don't confuse an act of the PUC
with an act of the RBOC. If the PUC decides to price based on value
then complain to and about the PUC, not the RBOC.
 
> LJP> For a competitor to provide a voicemail service equivalent to the 
one
> LJP> offered by the LEC, they need to have the LEC provide:
> LJP> - forward on busy/no answer
> LJP> - remote control of stutter dialtone
> LJP> If the telco charges as much for those supporting features as 
they do
> LJP> for the service that includes them, I would call it predatory.
 
> TG> I think the operative term here is "IF". What we really need
> TG> is some accurate pricing information and service descriptions
> TG> in order to decide whether or not this accusation is true.
 
> Are you saying that you agree that if such pricing occurs, then it
> predatory and should not be allowed ? If so, we would be almost in
> agreement, and we could proceed to an evaluation of facts: Does such
> pricing indeed exist.
 
Sure. I don't condone predatory pricing. Never said I did. The answer
to all this is unbundling. The stutter dial tone and CFBDA features
need to be sold separately from the voice mail function itself. That
is why we need service descriptions and prices in order to determine
fully what is going on. But remember, what is good for the goose is
good for the gander. The same rules will also have to be applied to
any local competitor in the future.
 
> LJP> In my book, the IXCs access charges should be the same as the 
price of
> LJP> a local business call. The IXC is a business, as far as the LEC 
is
> LJP> concerned. The LEC's subscriber is placing a call to the IXC 
(assuming
> LJP> for the moment 950-xxxx access) and on the terminating end, the 
IXC
> LJP> is placing a call to the terminating subscriber. In most places, 
the
> LJP> access charges are 2-3 times the local business call rates. This 
is
> LJP> not a fair price. It seems reasonable to allow for a higher 
access
> LJP> charge on the originating end to pay for the database processing 
to
> LJP> record PICs for 1+ dialing, so long as 950-xxxx access is still
> LJP> available at the basic charge, though.
 
> TG> Toll for the price of local? You bet.
 
> Read again: Toll ACCESS for the price of local.
 
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. We don't do manual
recording anymore. It costs just as much to terminate a call and
record the access minutes as to originate a call and record the access
minutes. Recording PIC's and such should probably be part of the flat
rate monthly bill, it certainly isn't a usage senstitive part of the
equation.
 
> TG> That is exactly where this market is going.
> TG> The problem is that the IXC's are going
> TG> to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the real
> TG> world. A consortium of IXC's just today took out a full page ad
> TG> in several major newspapers condemning SWBT for it's
> TG> monopolistic practices. Guess what the monopolistic practice
> TG> being condemned is? LATA-wide flat rate calling.
 
> Are you saying that SWBT has expanded the local calling areas 
everywhere
> to whole LATAs ? Or that SWBT has defined "calling plans" that the 
IXCs
> cannot match because SWBT are charging more in access fees ?
 
Yep. SWBT filed to make the whole LATA a flat rate calling area in
Kansas and Missouri. $30 a month for residence, $60 per month for
business I believe. The IXC toll rates in Kansas are already less than
SWBT offers. So it isn't the access rates that is causing the problem
for the carriers here.
 
> TG> So on the one hand the IXC's are complaining about having to pay
> TG> too much for access charges and on the other hand fighting truly
> TG> competitive service offerings tooth and nail. What I hope to see
> TG> happen someday is that the RBOC's will be allowed into the 
interLATA
> TG> markets and then we can see some really competitive offerings -
> TG> how about nationwide flat rate calling?
 
> Once there is true competiotion in local access, the LECs will be let
> loose. But allowing LECs to buy marketshare in the long distance
> business and pay for the losses with money earned in a monopoly
> home market is not in the interest of the consumer.
 
The problem is that the local monopoly is on the way out. YOU may want
to argue that there are consumers that no competitors will want to
serve. This is just what Charlie Brown with AT&T started arguing in
the 1980's. Nobody listened then, they aren't listening now. There
WILL be some eggs broken. If the PUC's don't like it then they need to
get with Judge Green ASAP and see if things can be put back the way
they were. Don't hold your breath though.
 
 
Tim Gorman    tg6124@tyrell.net
Southwestern Bell Tel. Co
 
------------------------------
 
 
 
Hi.  I finally found the 800 number for VT-net, the Internet access
service that NYNEX provides in Vermont below cost (or it would if they
weren't selling 800 service to themselves at a price lower than they
offer to any of their customers).  The number is 800-763-9400,
provider is indeed NYNEX.
 
As I noted in another message, this sort of situation wouldn't occur
if regulated utilites stuck to monopoly services.
 
 
Regards,
 
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com
Primary perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies"
 
------------------------------
 
 
 
Without going too far afield, in Ohio we are discussing how to open
the local loop up for competition and issues like this are on the
table. The new phone compnay wanna-be's (Warner, MCI, MFS, AT&T, etc)
have suggested that all subsidies be removed, identified and funded
rather than hidden in one or another rates. Incumbent LEC's have
suggested there is a subsidy for rural service, carrier of last
resort, and universal service. Just today AT&T (currently an IX)
suggested that their calls cost the same to terminate as any other
call and should be priced based on cost (the silence you hear are the
LEC's trying to breathe again ). Interconnection and unbundling where
access to dialtone control and other such things will be discussed are
on the agenda once the preliminary sparring rounds are finished.
 
 
Frank Atkinson  fratkins@freenet.columbus.oh.us or frank@hannah.com
I think therefore I am, I think?
 
------------------------------
 
End of TELECOM Digest V15 #213
****************************
 

