Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!lll-winken!telecom-request From: peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: PacBell Blocks 950-xxxx Message-ID: Date: 24 Mar 91 23:20:25 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: A corner of our bedroom Lines: 21 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 235, Message 10 of 10 galen@toad.com (Galen Wolf) writes: > [Moderator's Note: It may be some technical problem instead, so before > reporting it to the PUC, why not ask PacBell what is going on? PAT] I would humbly like to note that when I made a similar comment about more traditional COCOTs I was widely flamed as pandering to slimy AOS-COCOT ripoff artists. If tactics like calling the PUC and sticking labels on the offending phones are reasonable anywhere, they are all the more reasonable for a phone compnay who (I must presume) would be expected to know more about programming the things than the local chinese take-out place. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com [Moderator's Note: The difference is, we don't usually expect this sort of response from Bell payphones ... with COCOTS it is old hat: refused connections and outrageous prices, etc. We know complaining about COCOTS does very little good. No so with Bell payphones. PAT]