Posted on 02/15/2005 7:21:11 AM PST by advance_copy
The fighting entrepreneurial spirit was a hallmark of the man who helped found MCI -- William G. McGowan. McGowan, a financier who was brought in to save the nearly bankrupt MCI Communications Corp., in 1968 was a scrappy fighter determined to take on the giant AT&T, which at that time had monopoly control over all telephone service in the United States.
Early in his bid to offer long-distance service, McGowan concluded that the company needed to be in Washington, where it could monitor its battles in the courts and Congress and before the Federal Communications Commission. Until then, the only telecommunications presence in the area was from Comsat International Inc. and Intelsat Ltd., government-created satellite firms.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I agree that the breakup of the Bell System was the right thing, but I think you are overstating public opinion.
I lived during that time and I don't recall any great public outcry about phone service. Most people just didn't care. In fact when the MFJ was announced there was a good deal of talk that Ma Bell should not be broken up - along the lines of one of the posts here - "we are messing with the world's greatest phone system, blah, blah, blah."
Again, I don't agree with this proposition, but a lot of people did think that way.
Also, there is something to be said for the power of inertia. Everyone had known since birth "The Phone Company" and were comfortable with it. Sort of like the sentiment expressed in "The President's Analyst" (poster above). Presidents may come and go, but the power of The Phone Company was forever. Good thing it's gone now.
I remember talking to an elderly woman on a cruise in 1984, and those were her sentiments. Some of the biggest advocates of the breakup were Fortune 500 companies that wanted to be able to link their computer systems across the country. Ma Bell's stranglehold on telecommunications was holding back the expansion of those services.
Well if you wanted DSL back in the 70s you'd be paying an exponentially higher fee than you are now. People just expect plant and equipment to fall from trees and protest loudly when their bill goes up 50 cents.
Competition had little to do with DSL availability also. Cost-return is all they look at. If anything competition hinders it.
AT&T could only be said to be gouging long distance and business lines. The residential customer was getting their service below cost. If the model that exists today existed 80 years ago we'd have no infrastructure outside of major metro areas.
It's well said....just not well supported.
ADSL indeed came after ISDN. It's based on part on ISDN technology.
I was there in the microwave radio to digital radio to fiber period. I split when it became apparent that petty fiefdoms based on a conga line of butt-kissers was more important than performance based on technical excellence.
My son is a freshman, and while I have his land line number, I never use it, and he says no one uses them.
And now that I think about it, he moved rooms between semesters, so I don't even think I have that number.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.