Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) Message-ID: <13230@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 10 Oct 90 23:52:05 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 25 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 727, Message 1 of 11 Mr. Churchfield's Confession brought the fallacy of COCOTs into even sharper focus. As before stated, the principle of COCOTism is to take a supplier (telco and IEC) and a customer (person on street) who have traditionally done business directly with each other via the public telephone and insert a middleman who expects a significant cut of the action. This means that either the supplier has to significantly discount to the COCOT operator, or the customer is expected to pay more. So far, it has been both, if not more of the latter. But Mr. Churchfield throws another whammy at us. A COCOT feeds not one but many new mouths (owner, vendor, AOS, site owner). And more importantly, the person responsible (owner) is not the person in control (vendor). Is there any wonder that the technical violations abound? Mr. Churchfield's Confession tells me that COCOTs are a bad deal for all: utility, owner/operator, and customer. So once again I ask the question: who was supposed to benefit and how in the matter of COCOTs? With the new Federal legislation, even the AOS operators will no longer be laughing all the way to the bank. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !