Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: adiron!tro@uunet.uu.net (Tom Olin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File
Message-ID: <13768@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 90 13:58:10 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 25
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 743, Message 9 of 11


gillett@ceomax.enet.dec.com (Christopher Gillett) writes:

>911, and other emergency services numbers, are for emergencies ONLY and
>should never be called unless there is truly a crisis.

Interesting dilemma.  How do you suggest that one determine if a COCOT
will dial 911 when it is needed without dialing 911 *before* it is
needed?  I'm not suggesting that everybody start testing all COCOTs
once a week, but given the widespread problems with COCOTs, there
needs to be some method of detecting and correcting deficiencies,
especially potentially life-threatening ones.

>If there's an emergency and I find a COCOT, I don't care if it costs a
>quarter, or even a dollar...

You should care, in case you don't have any change when an emergency
arises.

But I agree we should not intentionally disable a phone that might
have to save somebody's life someday.


	Tom Olin	uunet!adiron!tro	(315) 738-0600 Ext 638
 PAR Technology Corporation * 220 Seneca Turnpike * New Hartford NY 13413-1191