Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!world!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!)
Message-ID: <13231@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 10 Oct 90 18:27:33 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 27
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 2 of 11


In article <13201@accuvax.nwu.edu> churchfield1@ncf.al.alcoa.com (B.
CHURCHFIELD) confesses:

> [... a] payphone does not make a lot of money. It is not always the actual
> COCOT owner who is the bad guy, but quite possibly a vending company
> or an AOS who is at the root of the problem.

Do y'all remember the initial message I posted on this subject, asking
folks to consider the poor COCOT owner before siccing the federales on
them? I think I'm vindicated by this message.

In article <13203@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com>
professes:

> But this is the flaw in the whole concept of COCOTs. In a free market,
> informed buyers make free and informed choices. So far, this has not
> been possible with pay phones.

As Mr. Churchfeild's Confession indicates, this is also true for the
*owner* of the COCOT. Perhaps instead of attacking the COCOT, point
your wrath at the AOS operators/dealers.


Peter da Silva
+1 713 274 5180
peter@ferranti.com