The Times' "Bully on the Line?" story contained some oversights and unfair associations.
First, there is the implication that as regulated monopolies, GTE California and Pacific Bell have inherent advantages over smaller competitors.
We, indeed, each have franchised serving areas, with an in-place customer base. However, unlike new competitors, we must provide service to all customers in our service areas. We cannot selectively "cherry pick."
Secondly, unlike some of our competitors, GTE has not had to refund money to customers for overzealous marketing practices or "competitive abuses."
More importantly, the story implies that GTE and Pacific Bell are railing for a new means of "deregulation" to loosen Public Utilities Commission controls over local service and to cross-subsidize risky new services.