Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges Message-ID: Date: 3 Mar 91 00:53:00 GMT Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mr. News) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 66 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 174, Message 1 of 9 Originator: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: hub.eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu "Robert L. Oliver" writes: > As would be expected, these rates were approximately 500% of the Bell > rates. Instead of roughly .45, I was charged $2.95. I have heard reports of this sort of thing from all over the country, and have personally experienced it on a call from San Francisco to San Jose (intraLATA--normally $0.65 on Pac*Bell calling card). After getting a bill for nearly $4.00, I, too, complained bitterly to no avail. The only advice I can offer is: AVOID COCOTs. Consider the presence of a COCOT to be the absence of a phone. If you are reading this, the following conditions are probably true: 1. You know the difference between a COCOT and a utility phone; 2. You can afford alternative means, such as a handheld cellular phone; 3. You are literate enough to write to your state's PUC equivalent and the FCC; and 4. You are smart enough to remember where utility phones are when you really need them. I am pleased to report that utility phones are making a comeback in California, in both public and semi-public settings. At a 7-Eleven not far from my home, the two COCOTs were recently replaced by Pac*Bell phones. This is a trend that has emerged hopefully because COCOTs have been unprofitable. I am looking at COCOTs now to simply be a temporary shortage of real pay telephones. Except for calls that I know will be absolutely free, I NEVER use them. > Could I have used 10ATT to force AT&T long distance service on my > Intra-LATA call? How could I have forced Bell of PA to handle the > call? In PA, I don't know. In CA, there is no way. > There *IS* such a 10xxx code; it's normally only used to force BPA on > Phila./Southern Jersey calls in the specially tarriffed corridor. I have yet to see 10XXX work on ANY COCOT ANYWHERE. I would travel within a 100 mile radius to see and try one. To my knowledge, they do not exist -- at least in California. > Is this a common problem, or unique to PA? How do we get it changed? It is a common problem. It will be changed when COCOTs disappear, or start using coin-COS lines. > I *WAS* going to write to the PA PUC, but was told by Bell that the > PUC doesn't have jurisdiction on long distance calls (again, even > though this was really intra-LATA), and that I'd have to write to the > FCC. Bleh. All the AOS has to do is claim that they ship the call out of state and back in and it becomes the FCC's problem. You should write the FCC, if for no other reason than to complain that its regulations are not worth the paperbacks they are printed in. There are two points to remember about your specific problem. The first is that COCOTs exist at all because of the MFJ and Federal mandates (some states have successfully outlawed them). The second is that Federal regulations prohibit the overcharging that you experienced. Good luck. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !