Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Doug Claar Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain Message-ID: <3389@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 1 Feb 90 01:30:41 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 28 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 66, message 6 of 8 Well, I had my token unpleasant experience with a COCOT. Not remembering what the current law was like, I called the California PUC. They said that current state law required that motels and hotels MUST allow access to alternate long distance carriers; access from other phones to alternate carriers OR to 800 numbers was not currently required. There was a requirement (a tariff, I believe) that no payphone charge more than $.10 over PacBell intra-lata, and no more than $.10 over ATT inter-lata, in state. There is currently something before the commission to require "standardized" access from all payphones that would require access to alternate carriers and 800 numbers. I also talked to AT&T, and they said that if I couldn't dial 10288-0 to get to them, it was a blocking phone, and that was that. I'd really like to present the facts to the place where the COCOTs are. Does FCC order DA 89-237 override state setups? Is it really illegal to block access? (If so, why don't the state PUC and AT&T know about it?!?!?! Never mind, I don't want to know!) Thanks, Doug Claar