Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: More COCOTery
Message-ID: <13594@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 90 16:08:36 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Lines: 26
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 739, Message 9 of 14


In article <13505@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon)
writes:

>On Oct 13 at 10:08, Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil> writes:

>> One interesting footnote indicates that there must be COCOT-free areas
>> in the country -- I don't recall ever seeing this mentioned in the
>> Digest. "Legal restrictions prevent the sale of Private Pay Telephones
>> to customers in Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Oklahoma."

>Yes, indeed, there are no COCOTs in these states. How do they get away
>with it, since it comes down from Federal regulation on high?

COCOTs resell local exchange service and intrastate toll calls. Those
are within the domain of state regulators, so states have the right to
restrict them.

If COCOT were configured to _only_ carry interstate calls, then it
might be possible to put one in those states too.  But most calls are
intrastate.


Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com 
                 or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com
                    voice:  +1 508 486 7388