74066.2004@compuserve.com (Larry Rachman) (10/19/90)
A business associate of mine recently received a phone bill that included two collect calls he had no recollection of. The source turned out to be interesting one. I should probably preface this by saying that this fellow has a popular teenage daughter, which seems to result in him receiving a certain number of ring-no answer calls on a regular basis. He's more or less accepted these as the nature of the situation. What caught his attention on the collect calls was that they were from the same town he lived in, and were for in excess of $2.00 each! A call to the business office resulted in the discovery that the calls had originated at the '...payphone in front of the [local] Toys-R-Us..', which was (of course) a COCOT. The prevailing theory is that the COCOT attempted an automated collect call to his answering maching, and falsely assumed he accepted the charges. (He also gets a lot of null messages on the answering machine). As I'm keyboarding this, though, I can't help but wonder if the call was completed by a sleazy AOS that decided an answering machine was as good as someone saying 'Yes, I'll accept.' Do AOS operators work on commission?? Right now, he's trying to get a hold of TeleBlab International (or whatever) to have the call removed from the bill. Predictably, they either don't answer, or leave him on infinite hold. Interesting, though, isn't it? I thought I was safe from COCOTs because I never went near the fuzzy things, but it seems that they come and get you even in the comfort and privacy of your own home! Anyone out there with similar experiences?? Larry Rachman internet:74066.2004@compuserve.com
mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Martin B Weiss) (10/22/90)
In article <13841@accuvax.nwu.edu> 74066.2004@compuserve.com (Larry Rachman) writes: >Interesting, though, isn't it? I thought I was safe from COCOTs >because I never went near the fuzzy things, but it seems that they >come and get you even in the comfort and privacy of your own home! One thing that hasn't been addressed by the FCC NPRM and the legislation that was passed and signed by Bush (something he didn't veto for a change!) is the collect call issue. Presumably the choice of carrier should be made by the person paying for the call (that's the way economics is supposed to work, anyway). If someone is calling you collect from a COCOT or a telephone served by an AOS with whom you don't care to do business, then how do you get to choose? You are essentially stuck with the choice made by the person calling you. As a result, you can still be had by an AOS despite your best intentions! Martin Weiss Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh Internet: mbw@lis.pitt.edu OR mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: mbw@pittvms Moderator's Note: A sent-paid call and an incoming collect call are not quite exact opposites of each other. In sent-paid, you are paying for the decisions *you* make regarding the routing of the call and its duration. In collect calls, you have agreed to pay for *the caller's* decisions. The caller 'decided to' use a COCOT. Of course, we know how that goes: he probably decided nothing, since most phone users know nothing about it to start with. He saw a phone and used it. If you tell him later that his choice of phones caused you to get a higher than expected phone bill, you embarass a friend. So I usually say nothing and go ahead and pay for it. But my trained ear is listening from the moment I answer the call: Unless I hear 'this is the AT&T operator with a collect call, etc' I make it quick and offer to call back to wherever. PAT]
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (10/24/90)
On Oct 23 at 1:40, TELECOM Moderator and Martin Weiss write: > [On] the collect call issue. Presumably the choice > of carrier should be made by the person paying for the call (that's > the way economics is supposed to work, anyway). If someone is calling > you collect from a COCOT or a telephone served by an AOS with whom you > don't care to do business, then how do you get to choose? > Moderator's Note: A sent-paid call and an incoming collect call are > not quite exact opposites of each other. It is just because this is true that I take a somewhat draconian stance on the problem. I don't accept collect calls. Period. No exceptions. The moment I sense that an operator is even thinking "collect" I say "absolutely not" and hang up. Now, while you are staggering hand over heart to your terminal to talk about "emergencies" and "unforseen situations", allow me to give you the view from here. I have not accepted a collect call from ANYONE in about twenty years. In that time, no one has dropped dead, gone hungry, or served time as a result. There is always a way to pre-pay a call, whether it be change in the box, third-number, credit card, etc., etc. If some agency is calling to tell me about a relative or what-have-you, they can prepay the call. A one-minute call from anywhere in the country at the most expensive time of day is under $0.50 (I never said I wouldn't call the person back). The most destitute or cheap individual can afford that. If the only choice is a gouge-a-matic AOS, why should I pay rather than the caller? To that end, I have collect calls blocked in the Pac*Bell database. This means that a collect attempt within the LATA and a collect attempt within the state via AT&T will fail before it is placed. My personal feeling is that the concept of "collect" is an anachronism. Those who wish to receive collect calls as a "courtesy" to others will just have to accept the risk that accompanies their largess. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
gdw@groucho.att.com (Gordon D Woods) (10/24/90)
From article <13928@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Martin B Weiss): From Moderator's note: > decisions. The caller 'decided to' use a COCOT. Of course, we know how > that goes: he probably decided nothing, since most phone users know > nothing about it to start with. He saw a phone and used it. If you > tell him later that his choice of phones caused you to get a higher > than expected phone bill, you embarass a friend. So I usually say > nothing and go ahead and pay for it. But my trained ear is listening PAT, I can't believe your note. We are the ones who know what is happening and it is incumbent upon us to inform people and put "embarassment" aside. If we don't do it, things like defective COCOTs will endure because the public remains confused. [Moderator's Note: I'll speak out when asked to do so ... but talking to some people about relatively technical telecom stuff is a waste of time. A good many folks -- maybe most of the public -- cannot tell the difference between a telco payphone and a COCOT without looking closely, and even then, they are decieved. When COCOTs first started appearing, *I* could tell the difference easily. Now the COCOT manufacturers are taking care to make their instruments look exactly like the genuine thing; even *I* can only tell the difference sometimes by reading the instruction card in detail: if it says for Repair Service to call something other than 611, for example ... or if it gives a strange dial tone of its own, or a few other things. You expect the public to pay attention? All these years after divestiture the public still refers to 'Ma Bell' and 'the phone company'... admittedly that makes it great for business at the OCC's and the AOS snakepits; it makes it rough for the rest of us though. PAT]
CRW@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins) (10/25/90)
In article <13948@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > The moment I sense that an operator is even thinking > "collect" I say "absolutely not" and hang up. ... > If the only choice is a > gouge-a-matic AOS, why should I pay rather than the caller? Murphy's view of a gouge-a-matic: "But, sir, our gouge-a-matic automatically detected that you actually did accept the call -- it has quite an extensive vocabulary to do just that." "I most certainly did not." "But we have your response recorded here; is this your voice sir?" <playback> "Will you accept the charges?" "Absolutely" Hee . . . Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw