Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: More COCOTery
Message-ID: <13477@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 11 Oct 90 03:59:57 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 23
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 731, Message 2 of 10


In-Reply-To: message from mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu

> Perhaps more "real people" should be investing in COCOTs as a way to
> turn around the market abuses.  Economic theory would suggest that an
> correctly programmed phone charging competitive rates placed next to
> an incorrectly programmed one charging much higher rates would be more
> successful.  Thus, the abusive telephone would see a drop in traffic
> and revenue, which should cause the owner to reform their errant ways.

As you say, "economic THEORY"!!  That assumes the general public is
even aware that there's a difference in the two side-by-side phones.
I don't believe that is the case.  I suspect the majority of the
people who use the phone system think in terms of "_THE_ phone
company", and equate that phrase to some string containing the word
"Bell".  Casual conversations with a number of folks indicate (to me)
that aside from the readers of this group, a "very knowledgeable"
individual is one who knows that there is more than one L/D carrier
available.

I also think that if the "general public" were aware of what is really
happening, the problem would not be COCOTs and their operators, but
more likely, a rash of lynchings and organized vandalism!  :-)