🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Sep14.162357.15619@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:

>In article <1992Sep12.143433.13251@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>>Agreed in part -- but (a) since it is a subsidiary of what used to be
>>ONLY "the phone company" most people feel it is an outgrowth of "the
>>phone company", and indeed this is true; (b) they are covered by basically
>>the same body of regulations; (c) the money all goes into the same
>>shareholder and executive pockets as USWest Comm's profits do; (d) because
>>of (a) through (c) they can wield the name like a club, and people pay
>>attention.
>>
>(a) is correct (if obvious and irrelevant).

Relevant -- it's how people think of "you".  You can't ignore it even
if it irrelevant to other issues.

>(b) somewhat true. COMM is regulated and the rest is un-regulated.

Certainly somewhat true, as you yourself say "we can't do such&such
across LATA borders", so clearly there are some regulations on you &
other related USWest-entities.

>(c) is totally wrong. Comms profits and Comms profits. The seperate entities
>of US WEST ARE seperate entities. We get none of COMM's goodies.

No, it is most definitely *right* -- and crucial to the discussion of
how you are still part of USWest.  I'm saying the net profit or loss
from your entire company winds up as part of the USWest balance sheet.
(As does USWest Comm's, and all the other entities.)  I'm not saying
Comm owns you, but whoever owns you owns Comm too.  Same stock.  Or
are you telling me that USWest Direct stock is traded separately from
the stock called "USWest" on the NYSE?  If this is true, then I would
retract (c).

>(d) takes care of itself.

And how :-)

>>Also (e) [where I now get on uncertain ground] they have direct
>>access to the phone number databases needed to implement a directory
>>service, whereas an outside company would have to (I presume) pay for
>>this information, and somehow pay to keep it updated.  I.e., I
>>
>(e) is wrong. Because of the MFJ and Judge Green, and all that, those
>listings have to be offered to everybody at the same rate. They can't
>give it us for free (since we are de facto a seperate company) and sell
>it to others for free. I have the technical term for that at home. Can't
>remember it now. So DIRECT has to BUY the listing just like anybody else.
>As Far as the competition goes, DIRECT has just had more experience doing
>what they do best (YP), but after all this time I don't see why the 
>competition is still so pitiful.

They're pitiful because they couldn't compete with the existing customer
base USW Direct already had, without, as I say below, throwing out
all the YPs for a few years.  Someone else would have to offer something
not just equal to USW/D's YPs, but something much better to attract
customers AWAY from your YP, and with your YP already sitting in umpteen
million offices and homes, that's nearly impossible.

Just having access to the data itself isn't enough, I guess I should say.
You'd need to have dumped all the customers and told them "ok, now choose".

>>Ah, too many embarrassing (to USW) stories for me to tell.  I've done
>>quite a bit of consulting with many different USW units, so I feel
>>pretty secure in saying "it's messed up". :-)
>>
>No more no less than any other company.

More than others, from my personal observations.

-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

      "And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"