Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc Message-ID: <10095@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 24 Jul 90 20:05:08 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 65 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 514, Message 3 of 9 S M Krieger writes: > When I was in Las Vegas last week, my observation was that at least > 75% of the public telephones are COCOTs Ain't it the truth. And when looking for a utility phone, you have to reverse your COCOT detection methods: look for the stupidest COCOT-looking phone and you probably have found a genuine Centel phone. > Anyway, an ITI operator answered, and I asked to be connected to AT&T; > she did connect me. ITI is right up there as the worst slimebucket AOS on the planet. I cannot believe that you were actually connected to AT&T by someone from that den of thieves. > Finally, from other sources, I believe the COCOT owner position on LD > selection is that as long as they do connect you, they are in > compliance with the FCC regulations. Giving customers a choice of LD > carrier doesn't mean they have to support 10XXX. But what good is carrier selection if there is no standardized way of doing it? I have been able to coerce COCOTs into giving me the AT&T operator using a multitude of methods, but I would hardly consider them to be in compliance with FCC regulations. The average user shouldn't have to "trick" a phone into giving him the carrier of his choice. Asking an AOS operator for another carrier doesn't cut it. And what if you were a user of some other carrier? How would you place the call through Sprint? MCI? Telesphere? What if 950 wasn't allowed (or available)? Unless the slimebuckets can come up with a better standardized way of selecting a carrier, then I think 10XXX is the way. That is the way that the utility phones handle it. > Also, what the COCOT > owners want for having to support LD carrier selection is payment for > the use of their phone, either in the coin slot or from the selected > LD company. No tears shed here. In any business there are certain "pro bono" items that come along. In the COCOT business, one of them is free handling of 911 calls. If the slimebuckets want people to use THEIR carrier, how about making it competitive, posting a rate comparison, and using the generally accepted methods of free market competition rather than technically preventing people from shopping elsewhere. No one is holding a gun to a COCOT owner/creep's head forcing him to stay in that business, ripping off the public. Six years ago, the business didn't even exist, so there are hardly any family traditions in danger of upset. If the scum can't make it with local calls and COMPETITIVE long distance, then replace his garbage with a utility phone which will serve the public better anyway. This area of COCOTs is possibly the MFJ's worst legacy. It takes a 100 year tradition of customers dealing directly with a company and artificially inserts a middleman (the COCOT owner) who SUBTRACTS value from the service who then expects to be paid handsomely for his existence. I know of no other industry that has "value-subtracted" resellers who want such a major piece of the action. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !