Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Message-ID: <2598@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 4 Jan 90 07:13:56 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: very little
Lines: 24
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 5 of 8


I was interested to read Peter da Silva's comments about my posting
regarding disconnection of COCOTs.  At the time that I wrote it, I was
a bit concerned that my posting sounded a little heavy handed.

Actually, I have tried communication with the owners of the offending
COCOT phones....but get nowhere.  Often the guy at the gas station or
convenience store says they don't know anything about it.  Also, in
this state it is a requirement that these phones have the name,
address, and phone number of the COCOT owner displayed, along with a
coin-free method of reaching them for repair or refund.  In each case,
my complaint revolved around the fact that the phone could not reach
these numbers.

Actually, I am not anti-COCOT.  I also think that the tarrifs on
COCOTs are awfully steep, especially since the telco wont give them
answer supervision.  But I also expect to be able to reach the
operator of each COCOT, as provided by law.


Tad Cook
tad@ssc.UUCP