TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Foreign Directory Listings

Re: Foreign Directory Listings

Mark Atwood (me@mark.atwood.name)
Thu, 03 May 2007 22:33:51 GMT

BILL HENDLEY <wh3786@swbell.net> writes:

> So -- the processes are there, the legalities are a non-issue, and the
> listings could be handled smoothly. If the VoIP provider desires to
> interface with the ILEC for directory listings, all they have to do is
> establish the connection to the ILEC. Why they do not do so is that
> they probably do not wish to pay the costs involved, since their
> business model is to generally avoid costs, fees, and taxes which are
> associated with or assessed by the wireline service providers.

I don't care.

The ILEC is required to take the listing from the customer. They can
use the law to compel payment of their bills et al, then they can
suffer the law when it compels them in turn.

> BTW, Foreign Directory Listings were always a headache, even before
> the divestiture of the Bell System in 1984. We had specialists in
> Pacific Telephone who handled those requests but much of that
> expertise was lost in the 1984-86 time period as work groups were
> disbanded and reformed, people left the business, staff support groups
> were disbanded, etc.

Again, I don't care.

That they've forgotten how to execute their mandated responsibilities
does not absolve them of their responsibilities.

The telco(s) made the choice to be so regulated. They made that bed.
Now they can lie in it. And I hope they die in it.

T <nospam.kd1s@cox.nospam.net> writes:

> I didn't know that about Greene though, that's too funny. So because
> this jackass couldn't let go of a dime we all get to pay higher phone
> costs. Is he still alive? Maybe we should sentence him to a hell of
> dirty, broken phones and high phone bills for his remaining days.

Adjusted for inflation, in constant dollars, my bill is lower and my
services are better than what my parents and what my grandparents
enjoyed.

AT&T would never have done any of that if they had suffered from
Carterphone and then from divesture.

You probably want to go back to the days when it was *illegal* for two
neighboring companies to lay down a so much as a dry pair between each
other's buildings.

Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
me@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://fallenpegasus.livejournal.com/

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Listen, I actually saw a case like
this, and it was *one single customer*. The old Harper Theatre in
Chicago (in Hyde Park) decided to run a single pair in a loop around
their (rather large) premises from backstage to box office to upstairs
office. Their own battery on it, etc. The only place it even came
close to Bell was at one location (upstairs office) they terminated
that pair on one side of a two line turn button style phone. Everywhere
else it was on its own, with its own instruments, etc. Bell really
raised a stink (this was early 1970's) and required theatre to either
remove it or have it added to their monthly bill as a 'private circuit'
for several dollars per month. PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Fred Atkinson: "Re: Foreign Listings for Residences"
Go to Previous message: Al Gillis: "MCI (Was: Foreign Listings for Residences)"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page