john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (12/24/90)
In all the advertising and discussion of IECs, there has been a
service that has had scant attention: coin-paid calls. For the
purposes of disccussion, we are speaking of utility pay phones (COCOTs
are a bogus aberation).
Most Americans are brainwashed from birth that it is essential to
carry an IEC account of some kind. Whether it be a Calling Card,
FonCard, etc., most residents of the US have some kind of alternative
call billing capability. But there are also many, particularly
visitors to the US, that have no such account. These people depend on
the ability to deposit coins into the phone at the time of the call.
And who picks up 100% of this traffic? That's right: AT&T. Why?
Because the other carriers are not really full-service. Next time you
hear Sprint or MCI claiming to provide everything that AT&T does, run
down to your local utility pay phone and dial 10333+NPA+NUMBER or
10222+NPA+NUMBER (insert a '1' if required) and see how far you get. I
quarantee you the call will bomb. Then try 10288+NPA+NUMBER. You will
be asked to deposit money and if you do so your call will be
completed.
Why don't these companies carry coin-paid calls? I don't know. Equal
access has provided them with the means, but apparently they don't
consider that traffic to be worth the effort. It is just another case
of "skimming the cream". The "other" companies love the high volume,
high profit routes and services and are quite willing to leave the
esoterica to AT&T.
Who do you suppose will be the first non-AT&T carrier to accept
coin-paid calls? Do you think we will find out in this generation?
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
[Moderator's Note: You are mistaken on this, at least in Illinois Bell
territory. A review of 'genuine' payphones in Chicago at least will
show an instruction card on the phones explaining how to dial, etc,
and with a notation on each phone saying "Long distance traffic from
this phone is handled by __________". The choices seem to be
(admittedly mostly) AT&T, Sprint, MCI and ITI. Apparently they
contract with Illinois Bell to actually handle the battery reversal,
supervision and other aspects of collecting or returning coins. A
little paste-on sticker fits in the blank space above, giving the name
of the carrier. On public coin phones, the carrier is almost AT&T, but
on semi-public coin service, I've seen all the carriers noted above. PAT]kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) (12/27/90)
In article <15690@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> writes: [Speaking of 1+ coin calls.....] >And who picks up 100% of this traffic? That's right: AT&T. Why? >Because the other carriers are not really full-service. Next time you >hear Sprint or MCI claiming to provide everything that AT&T does, run >down to your local utility pay phone and dial 10333+NPA+NUMBER or >10222+NPA+NUMBER (insert a '1' if required) and see how far you get. I >quarantee you the call will bomb. Then try 10288+NPA+NUMBER. You will >be asked to deposit money and if you do so your call will be >completed. >[Moderator's Note: You are mistaken on this, at least in Illinois Bell >territory. A review of 'genuine' payphones in Chicago at least will >show an instruction card on the phones explaining how to dial, etc, >and with a notation on each phone saying "Long distance traffic from >this phone is handled by __________". The choices seem to be >(admittedly mostly) AT&T, Sprint, MCI and ITI. Apparently they >contract with Illinois Bell to actually handle the battery reversal, I just HATE trimming quotes of exchanges between John and Pat. It's so hard to leave anything out because it is all (usually) pertinent. Anyhow, on this issue they both are partly right and partly wrong. (and I'm not really sure I can give the whole story accurately either!) About eight months ago, Judge G or the FCC finally ruled on the issue of "pre-subscribed" carriers for "real" coin phones. In a nutshell, the pre-assigned carrier can apply either to 1+ calls, 0+ calls or both depending on what the IEC orders from the LEC. To date, in Illinois, no carrier has indicated that it cares to handle the 1+ calls where the caller puts money in the box (except AT&T). The matter gets a little complicated if you think the whole thing through. The order, as I understand it, said that the LECs shall arrange the coin routing such that 1+ calls WILL go to an IEC that can handle these calls. So, in Illinois, if you dial a 0+ inter-lata call, it will go the the pre-assigned carrier (the one on the sticker). If you dial an inter-lata 1+ call, it will go to AT&T because they are the only IEC that can handle these calls at the moment. The complicated part in having other IECs handle coin-paid calls is, I think, as much an accounting problem as it is one of technology. If it is possible to have several different carriers collecting money into the pay phone, how does the LEC divide up this money when it collects the coin box? John's experience seems to indicate that in his area, the 1+ calls will be blocked so maybe there is more flexibility in the "order" than I think. Maybe the routing of the 1+ calls to AT&T is a regional policy instead of a legal requirement. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 [Moderator's Note: Why do you feel the accounting would be any more of a problem than it is now? At present, the collecting agent (here, it is of course IBT) still has to detirmine which coins were deposited for local calls and which coins were deposited for long distance calls. AT&T bills IBT for long distance calls from each payphone; IBT in turn pays the bill and keeps all the coins. Would it matter if other carriers were billing IBT for long distance calls they handled from the phone? IBT would still keep all the coins deposited, deduct their commission for handling the collection, etc, and remit the balance due to the specific company. PAT]
kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) (01/01/91)
>The complicated part in having other IECs handle coin-paid calls is, I >think, as much an accounting problem as it is one of technology. If >[Moderator's Note: Why do you feel the accounting would be any more of >a problem than it is now? At present, the collecting agent (here, it >is of course IBT) still has to detirmine which coins were deposited >for local calls and which coins were deposited for long distance You are probably correct about the method used to divvy up the money. I don't really know because I have never been involved in that part of the business. It COULD become much more complicated, however, if there were, for instance, twenty players in the game instead of just one. I can't help but think of the "slamming" story. What do you do if the total "bill" from all the carriers adds up to more than what you collected from the money box? I sure wouldn't want to be the one who had to try to figure out why that happened! Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965