Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!apple!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: oplinger@sol.crd.ge.com (B. S. Oplinger)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Magazine for COCOT Owners:  Payphone Exchange
Message-ID: <14337@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 4 Nov 90 15:07:33 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: General Electric Corporate R&D Center
Lines: 32
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 790, Message 13 of 13


Patrick,

	I know you are busy, but could you maybe summarize the "The
Equal Access Qaundry and the FCC" (article discusses why the owners of
COCOTS should not have to provide 800/950/10xxx access for free)?

	I think it might provide insight into why COCOTs don't do all
the things required instead of just saying thinks like: they want to
make money, they are greedy, etc.

	Just a suggestion.

brian
oplinger@crd.ge.com
<#include standard.disclaimer>


[Moderator's Note: Well in summary that article said COCOT owners
resent not being paid for handling calls of that nature. They point
out that (in the case of telco payphones) the originating telco does
get money for handling 800/950/10xxx calls through intercompany
settlements between telcos. COCOT owners feel they should get the
couple cents on each call the local telco gets. Of course, COCOT
owners are end-users -- not telcos -- albiet end users who resell
their service. That makes the difference. The local telcos do *not*
share that pittance they get for handling 800/950/10xxx traffic with
their commission payphone agents; so why should they share it with the
COCOT people? As Higdon pointed out, COCOT owners are bogus middlemen
who are trying to resell what we always got direct from telco in the
past. A lot of things get out of kilter when you insist on cutting up
the pie in one more slice.  PAT]