Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: langz@eng.sun.com (Lang Zerner)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: More COCOTery
Message-ID: <13476@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 12 Oct 90 20:05:41 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
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 1 of 10


In article <13233@accuvax.nwu.edu> yazz@prodnet.la.locus.com (Bob
Yasi) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 727, Message 4 of 11

>[PacBell] DID know the PUC complaint number right away, though, and I
>consider that big progress.  That number in California is 800/648-6967.

The PUC told me that they had delegated the COCOT complaint function
to PacBell.  The number they gave me (which is on the improved labels)
is 800/231-1863.  I confirmed that number before putting it on the
label by calling and asking the PacBell rep, "Is this the correct
number to call to register complaints about customer-owned pay phones
in violation of PUC regulations?"  She said it was, and that you
needed to provide either the phone number or correct street address of
the offending device in order to register the complaint.

Regarding the 10xxx question, is there anyone who has a copy of the
actual regs so we can find out what really needs to go onto the label?

Be seeing you...

Lang