[mbreese]

It was part of the anti-trust case that broke up AT&T in the 80s and broke up local phone service into the baby-Bells. They were restricted from entering the market for long distance phone service as part of the deal.

The author is arguing that the primary purpose of the Telecom Act of 1996 wasn't to upgrade data networks, but rather deregulate them so that they could enter the long distance market. Given that AT&T and MCI ended up getting bought by two of the old baby-bells, this argument might have some merit.

[tantalor]

> restricted from entering the market for long distance phone service

Sure but what does that mean? And why?

[kcorbitt]

One of the reasons that Bell was broken up in the first place was because they wouldn't allow competitors with cheaper long-haul rates for long distance calls to patch into their interconnects and thus offer their services to Bell customers. It sounds like as a result of the settlement that broke up the monopoly the baby bells had some sort of restriction on providing cross-country or inter-regional service. The author is contending that the 1996 legislation, lobbied for by the telecom industry, was more about removing that restriction than actually motivating them to provide better service.

[throw_away]

It used to be that phone calls were tiered, in that you got free "local" access, but it cost more to call out of your immediate area. The baby bells handled local access, but you used a different company to get your per minute long distance calls to work. There were ads on tv all the time trying to get you to switch your long distance provider.