NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/comp/dcom/telecom/9516

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-12 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!telecom-request
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 03:50 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Contel After GTE
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Sender: [e-mail]
Approved: [e-mail]
X-Submissions-To: [e-mail]
X-Administrivia-To: [e-mail]
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 624, Message 9 of 12
Lines: 64

[e-mail] writes:

> Clay County has been served by Contel, who has made
> some fairly substantial investiments in the area (REA financed of
> course).  Anyway while I was there I noticed GTE had pulled all of
> their customer service operations out of Clay County.

This is standard GTE practice: centralize everything regardless of its
impact on customer service, public relations, or even profitability.
After all, if you need more money, just raise rates. GTE already has
substantially higher rates in California than Pac*Bell for a
significantly reduced level of service, so it is certainly possible to
con a PUC into going along.

My "desert hideaway" is served by Contel. Nearby is a small building
that houses a remote from the main switch many miles away. On the
front of the building are the block letters, C-O-N-T-E-L.  Recently,
the 'C' had fallen off and we had just assumed that it would remain
missing until GTE took over and pulled the rest of them off. But
yesterday it was noticed that the 'C' had been restored. So apparently
the "absorption" of Contel by GTE here in California is not just
around the corner.

That is good since we are prepared to pull up stakes and move the
operation elsewhere. Unfortunately, we require a level of service at
the facility that GTE could never provide in its wildest dreams.

> Another GTE story, told to me recently by a OSP contractor who got his
> start as a GTE lineman in KY: Aparentaly GTE got a rate increase based
> on some new services to be offered as part of a REA sponsered upgrade.

This is another standard GTE sleaze: "provide" some insignificant,
useless "improvement" to service (such as having business offices open
until 8 PM on Thursdays) and then use that as justification to jack up
rates. Understand that Contel already charges "higher than normal"
rates in California because it operates almost exclusively in rural
locales. Regulations allow telcos providing such service to compensate
for the higher costs of providing service in sparcely populated
districts. This is, of course, in addition to the ultra-cheap REA
loans that Contel, GTE, and other rural telcos are entitled to. (A
recent TV news magazine called this practice into question, claiming
that the need for such assistance was long past.)

In any event, GTE almost always demands a rate increase in any telco
it takes over. The claim is that it provides a higher level of service
(absolute balogna) and requires compensation for equipment upgrading.
Contel in California (and I assume in other states) is a progressive
operation that uses the most modern equipment and provides impeccable
service to which GTE's brand cannot even be compared. IMHO, when GTE
finally rips the Contel name off the buildings and tears them down, it
should be required to lower rates by a substantial amount, reflecting
the reduced level of service that will inevitably be provided.

> Anyway GTE didn't get the loan and thus was going to be making too
> much money.

GTE always makes too much money. Well, at least it charges too much.
What happens after that is anyone's guess.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !