Re: ISDN as Basic Service

["Fred R. Goldstein" <fgoldstein@bbn.com>]

  At 01:28 PM 6/21/96 -0400, Alaska Public Utilities Commission wrote:
  >Can anyone refer me to a comprehensive discussion of the pros and cons of
  >treating ISDN as a basic service (as opposed to a discretionary or emerging
  >competitive service)?
  
  The discussion is quite useful in the Massachusetts DPU decision in
  case D.P.U. 91-63-B, ruling dated Feb. 7, 1992, in which the New England
  Telephone ISDN tariff was approved with substantial modifications.
  
  The decision is 129 pages long.  Perhaps the DPU could tell you how to
  get a copy.  I just thumbed through it and saw the salient points raised.
  
  1) It's not competitively available.
  2) The absence of competitive alternatives indicates the need for traditional
  regulatory oversight.
  3) It's not the same as other "discretionary" services because there is no
  functionally-close substitute.  
  4) Even a service which begins "auxiliary" could become "basic" over time
  as it becomes common.
  5) ISDN has a "potentially far reaching and significant role" in the
  telecommunications infrastructure.
  6) The value of ISDN to the ISDN subscriber increases with the number of
  ISDN subscribers; this differs from most "auxiliary" services which
  are merely a convenience to the individual subscriber.
  
  The final result was to set ISDN business and residence local exchange
  rates based on the best available cost data, as a supplement above analog
  line rates.  However, ISDN Centrex is classified as competitive (because
  it's part of Centrex, which is a competitive class) and therefore the higher
  proposed rates were applied to Centrex ISDN.
  ___
  Fred R. Goldstein      fgoldstein@bbn.com  
  BBN Corp.              Cambridge MA  USA    +1 617 873 3850