Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake Message-ID: Date: 10 Apr 89 20:45:16 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: ATI Wares Team Lines: 30 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 131, message 5 of 11 In article , optilink!cramer@ames. arc.nasa.gov (Clayton Cramer) writes: [Regarding COCOTs] > If it's REALLY a "quasi-emergency device", then price is really not an > issue. Would you object to paying $2 to make a phone call for an > ambulance after a traffic accident? In reality *that* call would be free as mandated by tarrifs. What I really object to is paying $3.50 for a one-minute call from San Francisco to San Jose to say I'm going to be late. Particularly when there is no indication that this will be the case. > If it truly "rips you off" (doesn't provide the specified service) > that's quite different from "outrageous pricing". This is a grey area to be sure, but when I call my voice mail for messages and the tone pad ceases to work midway through the session and I am forced to simply hang up, leaving my listened-to vs unlisted-to messages in total disarray, animalistic tendancies come to the fore. You have to be in this position to appreciate the frustration. Perhaps if such phones were required to carry a notice e.g.: "This telephone cannot be used to access voice mail or other DTMF activated services." it would save a lot of trouble. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !