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)
______________________________________________________________________________