Given your attitude, I see no reason why the telco(s) should do any business with you at all. As to phone books, there are competitive Yellow Pages distributed. List with them.
My phone bill for basic 1 phone service is far higher -- adjusted for inflation -- than in was in the past.
The old Bell System was continually reducing its rates due to new technology. I was in college when long distance rates were reduced which was a boon to us since we had friends all over the country. They created a third discount level, after 11 pm/weekends, which was a boon.
The equipment they provided was continually improved.
The explosion in electronics, microcomputers, fiber optics and inexpensive ICs drove down the cost of service. It had nothing to do with competition.
It was always to the Bell System's advantage to increase volume to increase economies of scale. By reducing costs they lowered rates which increased traffic and revenue. In some cases where rates were increased
It was not illegal and commonly done. Many companies and governments had private internal telephone networks, sometimes with thousands of lines (often built by AE or other "independent" suppliers). I know of instances where two separate organizations and their private networks were connected by tie lines.
As to "going back to the days", I want:
1) to be able to talk to a customer service rep who was well trained, experienced, intelligent, well supported, and not paid by commission. 2) To be able to get rates for any kind of unusual call (ie overseas, pay phone) as easily as the Bell System gave them. 3) To get free prompt operator assistance when there was a problem or emergency. 4) To have 24/7 repair and no finger pointing of blame. 5) To have repair people on the street who are real employees, not outside "contractors" who are the dregs of the society. 6) To be able to purchase a _moderately_ priced telephone that is at least as good as a former Western Electric set was. (durability, maintainability, sound quality). 7) Honest pricing of services and promotions. 8) For business users, a professional support staff to show to how properly serve the public efficiently, and to discourage turret use where there's a 15 minute hold time for an agent. 9) Reasonable job security for employees so they have loyalty and good morale. 10) To make moderately priced toll calls (coin, credit card, collect) from pay telephones without pre-dialing access codes.The telcos today can't provide any of those things since all their competitors do not. They had to be sacrificed to keep costs down.
Pat, I really think this was an unusual situation on the part of the phone company. I've seen many such installations -- common in theatre
-- and the phone co didn't care.
Indeed, occassionally such systems would be illegally connected to the phone co network and the repair people would look the other way unless it was causing a technical problem. I knew many businesses that altered their keysets to allow multiple lines to be pressed down to make a conference circuit.
In a history of the divesture years, it is clear that the regulators supported this policy as much as the telco did. For one thing, they wanted the network protected from crappy homemade installations. For another, it was govt policy that premium services were used to cross- subsidize very basic service. Back in those days a great many subscribers paid only a few dollars a month for a message rate line and one phone set. Expensive to support, limited revenue. As urban problems hit in the 1960s, the Bell System was hit hard because so much of its plant was in old city neighborhoods. That was costly.
So, when a business rented a switchboard or key system, part of that rent covered those single set customers -- by intentional public policy.
The regulators didn't want customer ownership because the lost rental would mean > I'm saying that to the end user, there wasn't. He had a telephone and
There were some exceptions to external equipment.
As mentioned, the bundled policy was mandated by the government, not just the Bell System. Independent companies followed it as well. For many years other equipment manufacturers also required that for hook ups.
No. The real revolution started when components got dirt cheap and the economics of the situation changed.
No, they are the facts of telephone service, whether you like them or not. Of course, are you putting out MCI's propaganda when it claimed an entitlement to be unregulated in a regulated marketplace?
Certainly it is. But you conveniently forget the Bell System, being regulated, was forbidden to act like a regular business. It had to serve desert wastelands and inaccessible mountain tops at tremendous expense, yet charge the same rate as elsewhere. Unlike a normal business, the Bell System had to share all its patents. Unlike a normal business the Bell System offered telephone service only, it could not offer related services or other pieces of electronic equipment for sale or lease.
For instance, after developing Unix which was freely distributed to the world, the Bell System could have created or bought out a computer company and been a powerful player in the mini-computer marketplace, making big money in the process. It was not allowed to do so.
The Bell System could have created service bureas, as computer companies did, to provide answering services, order taking, customer service etc. It had experience in managing such operations and the economies of scale. It was not allowed to do so.
So, we see that you're real quick to criticize the Bell System for what it did, but are silent on what it was not allowed to do.
If AT&T charged true costs in the markets MCI entered, MCI would be history. But AT&T was not allowed -- by govt order -- to charge market rates, it had to average everything nationwide. MCI, not being under any such burden, had an advantage. It also could freely use AT&T's technology, developed at great expense, because AT&T's patents were public domain (again, govt mandate).
As Pat noted, MCI couldn't pay its bills on time. A "normal business" would've refused any more connection with MCI under those circumstances. But the Bell System, being not "normal", was forced to take it.
Lastly, MCI gained market share though the back door of litigation, not public policy. Many people faulted the court system for supporting Verizon in its patent infringement case with Vonnage. Well, the court system was wrong in giving into MCI. If public policy was to be competition, then that should have come through the legislature and regulators through normal channels, and AT&T given a fair playing field. That is, removal of the restrictions that bound AT&T.
Interesting claim, but false propaganda. By public policy, most utilities are granted a monopoly in return for regulation. The electric, water, gas, streetcar/bus, steam, etc. companies all work that way, by design.
As a tightly integrated system provider, especially one where the fixed plant cost billions of dollars, it made economic and technical sense for the Bell System to want to control it.
Every business determines a model for how its customers will use its products and services. For example, IBM developed a model that was very successful. Univac and other computer competitors did not, even though they had computers before IBM did and were bigger companies.
Sure, having the other fighter tie his hands behind his back, as MCI did to AT&T, is an easy way to win. See above. Again, if AT&T dropped its rates in MCI areas to true costs--standard "normal" business procedure -- MCI would be gone. But the government forbid AT&T to do so.
The fact is that divesture brought many negatives into the telephone service world that no one seems to care about. Things have happened -- consumers and businesses have lost big money -- because of that.
I, and many other consumers and businesses, are paying more. As mentioned, businesses have had to hire their own telecom staff to do what the Bell System previously did for them. That mitigates savings.
The apologists for divesture defend such cumbersome practices as dialing prefixes for calling card calls from pay phones, no rate service, and phone bills that are more complex than the Pentagon's budget. They ignore the fact that most consumers don't understand their phone bills and can't keep up with the various options, often get defrauded by "slammers".
The so-called benefits of divesture are exaggerated because of the simultaneous effect of cheap electronics. It's like the advocates of higher speed limits who claim higher speeds are safer. They ignore the _simultaneous_ effects of more people wearing seatbelts and cars having air bags as being significant factors in saving lives. (They also ignore higher accident rates and more severe vehicle damage).
I do not object to changes when they improve things. The world has changed, particularly technology. But I want true improvements, not just propaganda. I've been working with industrial telephone service for 30 years. I know the old "evil" Bell System gave us continual technical improvements and one stop service. I know the new world is a costly administrative nightmare.
Shifting costs from one line of a ledger to another is NOT an improvement, that is smoke and mirrors. That's what I object to. MCI bears blame for that.
I tried using MCI and Sprint repeatedly and never could get anyone. The call would land in phone mail jail, or I'd just be cutoff dead. Then and now.
This is well documented in independent histories of the Bell System.
True. But if you want to change that policy, change it for ALL. Don't let new guys in without that burden while forcing it on the old players.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lisa, you said one thing early on in this message with which I specifically disagree: You talked about Bell being 'forced' to take on losing territories. As a matter of fact, Bell stubbornly refused to provide rural telephone service for many years. President Roosevelt started the REA (Rural Electrification Administration) for just that reason, to provide electricity and phones to the farmers. That is the reason for many, many years there were literally thousands of rural telephone cooperatives and societies. The farmers put up the money (guarenteed by the REA) to build the telephone exchanges. Bell would not touch them!Then, lo and behold, in the 1960's as farmer's rural exchanges began to get their debt service all paid off, Bell was more than happy to jump in. By that time, the equipment was getting old and antiquated, the farmer's wife had gotten too old to run the switchboard any longer (and the farmer's daughter was not interested in running it). Bell made sure of course the debt service was all gone, then after carefully examining the individual circunstances decided to 'graciously' offer to buy up the telephone cooperatives, at least many or most of them.
There are still a few rural farmer's telephone cooperatives operating here in Kansas. I think 620-926 in Liberty, Kansas (a 'suburb' of Coffeyville/Independence is one such.) Liberty is a one stoplight town of about 300 people, one general store, and of course, the obligatory road house tavern out on the highway somewhere. Its about midway between here and C-ville on an unpaved road leading off of C-ville's 'Sunflower Street' (which is our 'Cement' Street) to the southwest of our old Portland Cement Plant. So please don't say how AT&T was always first in line to take the unprofitable exchanges. I think the exchange in Liberty is profitable for its owners because Dobson Cellular One has an 'antenna farm' out there somewhere with a jillion foreign exchange and specialty circuits going in to it. PAT]