Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!world!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: aablue.aablue.com.uux!macy@uunet.uucp (Macy Hallock)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File
Message-ID: <13807@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 90 12:54:00 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  +1 216 723-3000
Lines: 64
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 745, Message 12 of 13


In article <13482@accuvax.nwu.edu> Christopher Gillett writes: 

>As an individual who has worked as a volunteer to various emergency
>services organizations (fire dept and civil defense), I must strenuously
>object to the practices described by Tad and PAT. 

[Description of possbile effects of 911 call deleted]

Yes, this can be a problem and the comments posted here are quite
valid.

I always test the software of the phone systems in install for 911
operation.  Not to do so would be negligent.  However ... since I know
the 911 setup here fairly well, I call the 911 dispatch center who
would get the call on their regular POTS number and announce the fact
I would like to test from a particular location and number.  I have
never been refused or treated rudely.  In fact, the operators seems
quite pleased with the courtesy.

My only bad experience is with the City of Cleveland.  The POTS number
for the 911 dispatch is not published and they took a long time to
find a way to transfer me to the dispatch supervisor. After much
fumbling and a considerable delay, I was able to talk to a supervisor
and proceed.  (This is normal procedure when dealing with any
governmental unit in major cities, IMHO).

> If you want to sticker the phone, then make up a polite sticker, designed
> to get attention, that doesn't block the coin slot or render the phone
> totally inoperative.  The sticker should ask the reader to not use
> this telephone and give reasons why. 

What I want is the opportunity to make an informed choice.  I do not
want others making the decision of whether or not I can use a
particular COCOT based on their opinion of its programming and
operation.  An information sticker that does not damage the phone,
conpsicuously placed, allows me to make a more informed choice.

The public can then vote with their pocketbooks, without possibly
being denied the use of a phone in an emergency.

I still think PUC complaints are a fine idea.  The regulators look at
the volume of written complaints when making decisions, especially
when driven to do so under pressure from the media or legislators.  A
COCOT vendor with a record of written complaints will be more likely
to comply when pressure is applied by the PUC.

I have yet to see an example PUC complaint letter that I really like.
I have not taken the time to look at Ohio PUC regulations concerning
COCOT in any depth lately, so I am not aware of any particularly
effective regulations than can be used to deal with problem COCOT's.

And I confess that I feel as though embarking in a campaign against
COCOT's in this state would be playing into the Phone Co's hands ...
they have lobbied hard against COCOT's here, and have thrown up every
obstruction to them they could, including rendering the least amount
of service they could.

All in all, ripping the d*mn things off the wall would be far more
satisfying, but the felony charges that would follow would result in
considerable personal inconvenience to me at this time.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     macy@NCoast.ORG      uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy