Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Message-ID: <2596@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 3 Jan 90 19:47:18 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 70 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 6, message 3 of 8 John Higdon described how he got certain COCOTs owned by small businesses disconnected by complaining to the guvmint. I responded: Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who (as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements. How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first? John's response: > Don't you think that we, the public, are put upon enough with COCOTs > in general without having to hold the hand of someone who should be > aware of the rules and regs of his business BEFORE he foists his > instrument of annoyance on us all? Well, he could just not provide a public telephone at his place of business at all. That's a valid option. Lots of places do that. I'd much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than have to put up with "no, we don't allow phone calls... but the laundromat across the street there has a public phone: there's a traffic signal a block east". The guy's providing a service. There's no law saying he has to make a phone available to the next guy who walks in off the street. > In the matter of COCOTs, I have > wasted way too much time trying to track down owners of same to inform > them of things they should already know. Well, if you're there you can walk up to the person behind the counter and say "Excuse me, do you know that the law says so-and-so? Could you let the owner know?". If that doesn't get results, go ahead and use your nuclear option. But it doesn't take *any* time at all for you to try the easy route first. > My clients' listeners go straight to the FCC for perceived violations, > as well they should. Ignorance of the law, no matter how small the > business, is no justification for not following the rules. One of the biggest problems in this country, in my opinion, is people like you who think that it's OK to bring the force of the law to bear on someone. Yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But a measured response to an irritation is only common courtesy. More courtesy and less legal excrement can only help the situation. [ If it were known that violating the law, even accidentally ] > would result in summary disconnection, maybe more COCOT operators > would obey them in the first place, instead of trying to see what they > could get away with up front. You're attributing motivations to the owners of these COCOTs that might not be there. Many people can't even program a VCR reliably, you know. And the very people who are likely to be the subject of your ire are the people least likely to know they're in danger of summary disconnection. No matter what you do. And you might find that the response will be for them to pull the phone out completely, and direct walk-ins to the laundromat down the block and across the street. I'm sure you have no problems with that. No legal ones, anyway. _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / `-_-'\ Also or \_.--._/ v