Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: John Higdon Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Message-ID: <2623@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 5 Jan 90 11:02:17 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 101 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 8, message 2 of 7 peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > John Higdon described how he got certain COCOTs owned by small businesses > disconnected by complaining to the guvmint. I would be proud to claim credit for disconecting one of these monsters, but unfortunately you are miscrediting someone else's success to me. But moving on... > 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". What you seem to be saying here is "better a COCOT than nothing at all." Well, that's debatable, but not an issue. I can't speak for your area, but here in the Bay Area the onslaught of COCOTs did not mean an increase of public phones, but the wholesale replacement of Pac*Bell phones with COCOTs. This is my main complaint. If all the *real* public phones remained and COCOTs showed up where there had been no pay phones before, your argument would be valid. Actually, in some cases COCOTs did show up near Pac*Bell phones, but eventually the Pac*Bell phones were removed because the COCOTs couldn't survive with real phones within sight. Yes, I checked with the store owners; it was that way, not the other way around. > 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. No, but the Pac*Bell phone he used to have was somewhat superior to the COCOT which took its place. His shiney new COCOT may cough up more money for him, but it is certainly not as much service for his customers. > 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. Invariable answer: "I don't know anything about the phone. You'll have to call the number on the card." Card says call "211". Reaches disconnect recording, doesn't answer, or reaches answering machine. Leaving message is futile. There was one notable exception on a phone outside of a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet. I reached a live person to whom I complained about not being able to access AT&T. I was given a lengthy discourse on how they wouldn't make any money of they allowed this. "How would you like it if you had people using your telephone all the time and you didn't get anything out of it?" In other words, the kickbacks weren't big and fat like those from his ripoff AOS. It was much nicer when that was a Pac*Bell phone. I even used it then. > 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. Don't you think it is a bit naive to think that the average person is supposed to be more knowledgeable concerning telephony regulations than those in the business? How many people do you suppose a misprogrammed COCOT will rip off before a knowledgeable person finally uses it and does something about it? Of the somewhere between 50 and 100 times I have complained to COCOT operators about their non-compliant phones, not one has ever done anything to correct the condition(s). Your even-handed approach is wasted on this particular breed of businessman. Oh, and I wish you would avoid the phrase, "people like you". Those who know me are fully aware that in matters concerning "legitimate" businesses, I am most patient and long suffering. As a broadcaster, I almost never involve the FCC in any problem with a fellow broadcaster. But we're talking about people who are well informed and have a desire to comply with the standards of their business, not the "get rich quick" people in the COCOT racket. > 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. True, but they aren't in charge of a television station, either. If a person doesn't know anything about the telephone business, why is he subjecting the public to the consequences of his ignorance? I always thought that people got into business because they had some expertise to contribute or at least some interest in their endeavors. Lacking any of that, IMHO their motivations are indeed suspect. > 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. As a matter of fact, a COCOT was yanked from a 7-eleven near my home. A Pac*Bell phone took its place. I certainly had no problem with that! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !