Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Bernie Cosell Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Message-ID: <2676@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 7 Jan 90 15:22:51 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 61 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 13, message 4 of 11 john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: }peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: }> 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. I don't understand quite how this applies at all. Are the various RBOCs under some obligation to provide "public phones"? Could not *all* public phones, telco and cocot alike, all go away tomorrow if the various owners/operators chose? There are two kinds of pay phones in the world as far as I can tell --- really public ones [which means NOT on private property: like an outside phone booth on the corner] and public-service ones [where some private person has made arrangements to have a publicly accessible phone on their property]. For the latter, much as I despise COCOTs, I'm not sure I have anything to say about it, just as Peter points out. As for the former ones, I don't have a clue if there is some real set of public regulations requiring some density of those suckers or not, but it seems to be the only place where we can legitimately have a gripe: if there *is* such a standard, then I think it is exactly right that we bitch if there are not an adequate number of the really-public phones of a "socially reasonable" type, either real-local-telco, or COCOT with rational firmware. If there is NOT such a standard [or if the reality is that there are already "enough" of the public-public phones in the area], then there's not much to complain about [other than to try to get the standards changed]. In either event, I don't think we should have any particular way to tell the local hardware store what sort of phone they must/cannot provide. }> 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. Sounds like the American way. Why should he have one type of phone service or another for YOUR convenience? It pisses me off that I can't get "New Scientist" at the local news stand, but that's life --- he runs his business as he sees fit, and I take my business where I think my needs are best served. How else would you have it? /bernie\