Mike, I am in particular agreement with you point number 3. I just had a second line installed in my home and I know of several other people that are doing or have done the same thing.
PZ At 02:48 PM 1/9/98 EST, MikonCons wrote: >Your message of 1/9/98 seems well-intentioned, but misses reality. > >1. Low cost "Lifeline" services ALREADY exist for the poor and elderly >(mandated by law). These provisions are not expected to change in the next >decade. > >2. "Competitive" technologies for internet access such as cable modems STILL >REQUIRE CONTINUOUS TELEPHONE ACCESS to transmit commands, requests, and >uploads to (hopefully) a local telephone number. This alternate does NOT >change the issue at this stage of cable modem development. > >3. UNLESS the adult individual is unemployed, routine and extensive use of a >phone line for internet access (at the expense of sacraficing all incoming >calls) usually leads to the installation of a SECOND line. This leads to >ADDED monthly charges by the telco provider that wasn't there before; hence, >MORE $$$ for the telco provider. > >NOTE: Extensive phone use by kids almost invariably leads to a second (or >third) line installation; hence, the telco provider WINS AGAIN!!! > >4. Last, but certainly not the least error, the local telco supplier is the >ONLY provider. That is, THERE IS NO COMPETITION to drive the market to a >competitive level. The new telco laws simply allow other baby bells to have >access via the local provider's installed infrastructure (i.e., telephone >lines, routers, switchers, etc.) at "reasonable" prices. To allow an existing >monopoly to "maximize profits" would crucify services to the general public. > >My recommendation: FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO PREVENT ANY RATE HIKE!!!! > >Mike Conn >Mikon Consulting >Santa Clara, CA > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Paul V. Zahra, NCE Manager, Service Provider Compliance Corporate Compliance Engineering * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
