Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: People Unclear on the Concept
Message-ID: <14612@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 12 Nov 90 04:43:11 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 813, Message 5 of 8


Ed Greenberg wrote in volume 10, issue 805:

| I dropped by the local Burger King the other day, for my ration of
| fast breakfast.  Outside is a brand spanking new COCOT.  Inside is a
| sign that states, "We do not give change for the phone."

The operative word here is "outside."

| Now, given that the BK is in it for the cash, why discourage usage?

Because the BK franchisee doesn't own the COCOT.  The landlord owns
the COCOT.  The BK franchisee got sick of being short of change for
its own customers by the end of the day (and losing sales when
customers walked out) because it provided change for the landlord's
customers.  The franchisee got sick of having its lines lengthened and
its real customers forced to wait because its employees were tied up
handling zero-profit transactions to help the landlord make money.
The only money they owe the landlord is what is stated in their lease.

COCOTS, by the way, should not be spanking.  Spanked, yes.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708 518 6769  312 693 0591
MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570   dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com