Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu (99700000)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!)
Message-ID: <13595@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 90 23:15:28 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Jim Haynes <haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu.uucp>
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz  CATS
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 10 of 14


One thing I learned from this exchange is that owning a COCOT is
somewhat similar (except for the amount of money involved) to owning a
fast food franchise.  That is, someone puts up the money to buy the
coin phone, pays for the location, services the machine, etc.  A
different entity corresponding to the franchisor exists to provide
various services such as AOS and maybe scouting out the location and
sells these services to the franchisee at perhaps inflated prices.

This bears on the suggestion that there should be competing COCOTs
side-by-side and the public would choose the one(s) offering better
services at lower cost.  I think that would work only if the
franchisors were able to establish readily-identifiable brand names,
and mark their phones accordingly, and advertise.  Thus you would have
McDingdong's and BurglarKing phones side by side, and the two
companies would constantly slug it out in national TV ads, and when
you used one of these phones you would expect the same consistent
grade of service from one installation to the next.

As for me, I'd rather buy stock in a telephone company than buy a
COCOT.


haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu
haynes@ucscc.bitnet
 ..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes