Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pyrdc!netsys!vector!nobody From: rja@edison.ge.com (rja) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: RE: Mercury in the UK Message-ID:Date: 24 Sep 88 12:20:07 GMT Sender: chip@vector.UUCP Lines: 21 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp (USENET Telecom Moderator) X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 8, issue 146, message 2 X-Submissions-To: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu (Mailing List Coordinator) X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp (USENET Telecom Moderator) Someone speculated in the last digest that Mercury was owned by AT&T and that was why they were cheaper than british Telecomm when calling the US from the UK. Not True. Mercury, which is a UK long-distance carrier similar to Sprint or MCI here in the US, is owned by Cable & Wireless PLC. Cable & Wireless operates local phone companies in UK territories around the world (Hong Kong Telephone is controlled by Cable & Wireless for example.) C&W is perhaps AT&T's biggest competitor. They own pieces of trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific telephone cables and are also trying to get a piece of the action in Japan where KDD (the former Int'l telephone service monopoly) will soon be getting a competitor. The competitor will be a joint-venture of many companies -- I think that Pacific Telesis was trying to get involved also. British Telecomm, newly privatised I hear, is like AT&T before the infamous breakup since they control ALL local loops as well as being the default long-distance carrier. There is no concept of 'equal-access' yet in the UK either. ______________________________________________________________________________ rja@edison.GE.COM or ...uunet!virginia!edison!rja via Internet (preferable) via uucp (if you must) ______________________________________________________________________________