dplatt@coherent.com (09/28/90)
Here's the current version of my COCOT-in-violation label file. It
was originally created on a Macintosh, using HyperCard and the "Print
reports" command. I then ran it through Glenn Reid's "Distillery"
program, to remove all of the Macintosh-specific PostScript constructs
and convert it into standard PostScript. The positioning and spacing
of the labels have been hand-tuned a bit.
The resulting PostScript program should be compatible with any Adobe
PostScript printer that can print on U.S. letter-sized paper. It'll
produce a single page of output, which can be copied onto label stock
(10 labels per page ... Avery 5352 or equivalent).
You may wish to edit the text of the labels ... in particular, if you're
located outside of California, you may want to change the phrase
"California PUC" to something else ("FCC", perhaps)?
Happy stickering, all!
Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 493-8805
UUCP: ...!{ames,apple,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com
INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@uunet.uu.net
USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc. 3350 West Bayshore #205 Palo Alto CA 94303
[Moderator's Note: Dave sent this to me compressed and uuencoded. I've
undone all that, and present it here in straight ASCII text. However,
errors will occur, so if you can't get this to work right, you should
consult Dave at the address he gives above. PAT]
-------- begin code here --------
%!PS-Adobe-2.1 debug version ((V 1.0d release 11 edit 4))
%%Title: %stdout
%%Creator: Glenn Reid and still.ps (V 1.0d release 11 edit 4)
%%Pages: 1
%%DocumentFonts: Helvetica
%%DocumentProcSets: Adobe_distill 0.112
%%EndComments
%%BeginProcSet: Adobe_distill 0.112 0
/PROLOGUE 30 40 add dict def
% 30 procedure entries + room for 40 cached font dictionaries
PROLOGUE begin
/clip { } def % causes problems. remove if "clip" is needed
/bdef { bind def } bind def /ldef { load def } bdef
/T { moveto show } bdef /A { moveto ashow } bdef
/W { moveto widthshow } bdef /AW { moveto awidthshow } bdef
/f /fill ldef /R { { rlineto } repeat } bdef
/r /rlineto ldef /L { { lineto } repeat } bdef
/m /moveto ldef /l { moveto lineto stroke } bdef
/x { 0 rlineto } bdef /y { 0 exch rlineto } bdef
/X { moveto 0 rlineto stroke } bdef
/Y { moveto 0 exch rlineto stroke } bdef
/c /curveto ldef /cp /closepath ldef
/s /stroke ldef /w /setlinewidth ldef
/g /setgray ldef /j /setlinejoin ldef
/d /setdash ldef /F /setfont ldef
/C /setcmykcolor where { /setcmykcolor get }{ %ifelse
{ %def
1 sub 3 { 3 index add neg dup 0 lt { pop 0 } if 3 1 roll } repeat
setrgbcolor
} bind
} ifelse def
/selectfont where { pop }{ %ifelse
/selectfont { exch findfont exch scalefont setfont } bdef
} ifelse
/MF { exch findfont exch makefont setfont } bdef
/FF /selectfont ldef
/DF { selectfont currentfont def } bdef
/BEGINPAGE { pop /pagesave save def } bdef
/ENDPAGE { pop pagesave restore showpage } def
/REMAP { %def
FontDirectory 2 index known { pop pop pop } { %ifelse
findfont dup length dict begin
{ 1 index /FID ne {def}{pop pop} ifelse } forall
exch dup length 0 gt { /Encoding exch def }{ pop } ifelse
currentdict end definefont pop
} ifelse
} bdef
/RECODE { %def
3 -1 roll 1 index findfont /Encoding get 256 array copy exch
0 exch { %forall
dup type/nametype eq
{ 3 {2 index} repeat put pop 1 add }{ exch pop }ifelse
} forall pop 3 1 roll REMAP
} bdef
end %PROLOGUE
%%EndProcSet: Adobe_distill 0.112 0
%%EndProlog
%%BeginSetup
PROLOGUE begin
%%EndSetup
%%Page: 1 1
%%PageFonts: Helvetica
1 BEGINPAGE
18 -36 translate
/F1 /Helvetica 9 DF
(OUT OF ORDER. This telephone's programming violates ) 19.48 752.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned ) 19.48 743.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 19.48 734.56 T
F1 F
( ) 19.48 725.56 T
F1 F
(O Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 19.48 716.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 19.48 707.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 19.48 698.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 19.48 689.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 19.48 680.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 19.48 671.56 T
F1 F
(O Rates not posted) 19.48 662.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER. This telephone's programming violates ) 309.48 752.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned) 309.48 743.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 309.48 734.56 T
F1 F
( ) 309.48 725.56 T
F1 F
(O Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 309.48 716.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 309.48 707.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 309.48 698.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 309.48 689.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 309.48 680.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 309.48 671.56 T
F1 F
(O Rates not posted) 309.48 662.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER. This telephone's programming violates ) 19.48 606.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned ) 19.48 597.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 19.48 588.56 T
F1 F
( ) 19.48 579.56 T
F1 F
(O Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 19.48 570.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 19.48 561.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 19.48 552.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 19.48 543.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 19.48 534.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 19.48 525.56 T
F1 F
(O Rates not posted) 19.48 516.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER. This telephone's programming violates ) 309.48 606.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned) 309.48 597.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 309.48 588.56 T
F1 F
( ) 309.48 579.56 T
F1 F
(O Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 309.48 570.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 309.48 561.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 309.48 552.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 309.48 543.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 309.48 534.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 309.48 525.56 T
F1 F
(O Rates not posted) 309.48 516.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER. This telephone's programming violates ) 19.48 460.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned ) 19.48 451.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 19.48 442.56 T
F1 F
( ) 19.48 433.56 T
F1 F
(O Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 19.48 424.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 19.48 415.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 19.48 406.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 19.48 397.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 19.48 388.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 19.48 379.56 T
F1 F
(O Rates not posted) 19.48 370.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER. This telephone's programming violates ) 309.48 460.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned) 309.48 451.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 309.48 442.56 T
F1 F
( ) 309.48 433.56 T
F1 F
(O Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 309.48 424.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 309.48 415.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 309.48 406.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 309.48 397.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 309.48 388.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 309.48 379.56 T
F1 F
(O Rates not posted) 309.48 370.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER. This telephone's programming violates ) 19.48 314.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned ) 19.48 305.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 19.48 296.56 T
F1 F
( ) 19.48 287.56 T
F1 F
(O Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 19.48 278.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 19.48 269.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 19.48 260.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 19.48 251.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 19.48 242.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 19.48 233.56 T
F1 F
(O Rates not posted) 19.48 224.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER. This telephone's programming violates ) 309.48 314.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned) 309.48 305.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 309.48 296.56 T
F1 F
( ) 309.48 287.56 T
F1 F
(O Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 309.48 278.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 309.48 269.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 309.48 260.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 309.48 251.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 309.48 242.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 309.48 233.56 T
F1 F
(O Rates not posted) 309.48 224.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER. This telephone's programming violates ) 19.48 167.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned ) 19.48 158.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 19.48 149.56 T
F1 F
( ) 19.48 140.56 T
F1 F
(O Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 19.48 131.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 19.48 122.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 19.48 113.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 19.48 104.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 19.48 95.5601 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 19.48 86.5601 T
F1 F
(O Rates not posted) 19.48 77.5601 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER. This telephone's programming violates ) 309.48 167.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned) 309.48 158.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 309.48 149.56 T
F1 F
( ) 309.48 140.56 T
F1 F
(O Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 309.48 131.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 309.48 122.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 309.48 113.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 309.48 104.56 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 309.48 95.5601 T
F1 F
(O Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 309.48 86.5601 T
F1 F
(O Rates not posted) 309.48 77.5601 T
/showpage {} def
1 ENDPAGE
%%Trailer
end %PROLOGUE
%%EOFmsb@sq.com (Mark Brader) (10/02/90)
Please pretend for a moment that you are an ordinary person. Some emergency comes up -- a traffic accident, say, or someone collapses with a heart attack, and you are a bystander. You spot a payphone nearby and head over there to dial 911, or whatever your local emergency number is. On the phone you see the following sticker covering the coin slot: > OUT OF ORDER. This telephone's programming violates > California PUC rules and regulations ... > [several lines of checklist deleted] Seconds may count. You never heard of programmable telephones and PUC rules and regulations, but you know what OUT OF ORDER means. What do you do? I would like to say, "to prevent a possible tragedy, please amend the wording of these stickers to clarify, at the top, that emergency calls still work". But I don't know that this would always be true. Are there some COCOTs out there that demand coins on emergency calls? If so, then the act of blocking the coin slot could itself be lethal. Please be careful. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com [Moderator's Note: Mark and Jeff, your suggestion is *excellent*. I think there should be two labels made up: the original, and one that says 'Emergency calls - no coins needed; dial _________'. Then when auditing the COCOT for compliance, the person affixing the sticker should detirmine if (a) emergency calls are allowed for free, as required by law, and that (b) no initial deposit is required. If this is the case, then put the second label on also. PAT]
bier@sun.com (Jeffrey Bier) (10/02/90)
Do these COCOTs that people are complaining about allow calls to 911? If so, I'd like to suggest that the text of the 'out of order' labels posted in comp.dcom.telecom be modified, to indicate this. It would sure be shame if some poor soul in an life-threatening situation mistakenly thought that he couldn't dial 911 on one of these phones, and died trying to find another phone. Jeff Bier
FREE0612@uiucvmd (David Lemson) (10/02/90)
>Moderator's note about how we should determine whether or not a COCOT can >place 911 calls for free from a COCOT before we decide to place an OUT OF >ORDER sticker on it. How are we supposed to figure out if it can dial 911 for free, if it doesn't say on it. And even if it does say, we all know how reliable stickers on COCOTs are! I generally regard it as a bad idea to call 911, wait for a ring, and hang up.
carols@husc6.harvard.edu (Carol Springs) (10/04/90)
In Vol. 10, Issue 703, our Moderator responds to Mark Brader and Jeff Bier: >[Moderator's Note: Mark and Jeff, your suggestion is *excellent*. I >think there should be two labels made up: the original, and one that >says 'Emergency calls - no coins needed; dial _________'. Then when >auditing the COCOT for compliance, the person affixing the sticker >should determine if (a) emergency calls are allowed for free, as >required by law, and that (b) no initial deposit is required. If this >is the case, then put the second label on also. PAT] And how, pray tell, is this determination to be made? By trying 911? This wastes the time of 911 operators who might otherwise be responding to real emergencies. At the least it will annoy them. (I once made the mistake of dialing 911 about a disturbance that wasn't serious enough to be classified as an emergency, and was politely chewed out and told to dial the police station instead.) Dial 911, listen for ringing, and hang up quickly? WRONG... Some people might not realize, though, why this is a bad idea. Are there, in fact, many COCOTs left that *don't* allow free emergency calls? I thought this was the one COCOT deficiency that *was* cracked down on, and heavily, fairly early on. And if one passes out labels to friends and asks them to join oneself in a campaign against "broken" COCOTs, can one really expect the friends to follow the complicated separate label policy? Or to feel comfortable about testing the free emergency call part? I suggest that there be only one label. The wording of the "emergency" part might read: "IN AN EMERGENCY, try dialing _________. No coins should be required." This conveys the information that the phone ought to work for emergency calls, while implying that such isn't necessarily the case. Of course, this means that, for safety's sake, one also shouldn't place the sticker so as to block the coin slot. Sigh. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com
carols@husc6.harvard.edu (Carol Springs) (10/05/90)
Here's why I agree with Mark Brader that blocking the coin slot on
COCOTs is probably a bad idea:
Outside 911 land, there is probably only one way to make a free
emergency call from some (most?) COCOTs -- dialing the operator and
asking to be connected to {police, ambulance, etc.}. Assume that the
person in trouble knows the number of the appropriate agency and has a
coin. Assume also that seconds count. Do you really trust that the
operator whom the person reaches will make the appropriate connection
as fast as the person could by dialing directly? Remember, this is a
COCOT.
Within 911 land, even at phones where free 911 works, many people
don't realize that the call is free and will try to deposit a coin
anyway. Seeing the coin slot blocked, and being too distraught (or
too illiterate) to read the label, someone might give up on trying to
reach help from that phone. I wouldn't want to be responsible for
such a situation. Would you?
Covering the coin slot is a tempting idea. In practice, there are all
kinds of reasons not to do so.
Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.comforrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) (10/06/90)
The concern raised by several people regarding the possible affect on public safety caused by the use of these stickers brings up another issue -- the public safety affect of COCOTs in general. As most people who have COCOT experience will tell you, often you will approach a COCOT, and it will be out of order. Totally out of order. You pick up the handset, and there's no dialtone. Or, there is dialtone, but you can't use it, because it's "local" dialtone, and when the phone goes offhook (from the CO's point of view) to place your call, the line is dead. Very very rarely have I ever seen this the case with a Pacific Bell payphone. Now what if there's an emergency? You go offhook to dial 911, and the phone is comletely dead! Now, keep in mind, that before the advent of COCOTs, it's likely that there was a *real* payphone at this location that always worked. COCOTs weren't just added to previosly-vacant locations, but (in the words of a famous Digest contributor) there has been a "wholesale replacement" of Bell payphones. Ones that were always working to serve you in case of emergency. So, isn't the current state of affairs in COCOTery a public safety issue? Anybody that's cocerned about the amount of damage a few Digesters can cause with stickers should be for the total ban of COCOTs they are today, because of the affect on public safety. Or, perhaps, a tariff clause which states that each COCOT operator must see to it that their fleet of payphones maintain the same percentage of "uptime" that Bell payphones have, or lose the right to be in the payphone business? Hey, maybe this is something we could get our representatives and the law enforcement community fired up about. [Moderator's Note: I did not mention it at the time, but this was my thinking about COCOTS in response to the various messages saying that covering the coin slot posed a potential safety issue. In theory, perhaps yes, but in actual practice COCOTS are most unreliable anyway. Here in Chicago, a lot of them (most of them?) are maintained in dreadful condition; the owners seem to milk them as long as they can then either abandon them or sometimes install a new one. A sticker covering the coin slot is the least of the problems with most. PAT]
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (10/07/90)
Carol Springs <drilex!carols@husc6.harvard.edu> writes: > Covering the coin slot is a tempting idea. In practice, there are all > kinds of reasons not to do so. Be that as it may, covering the coin slot is a gentlemanly, civilized tactic compared to the way the average goon handles an offending instrument. There were two of the older, particularly greedy and offensive COCOTs at a corner that I pass daily. I have placed stickers, called the owner (and talked to his machine), and even called Pac*Bell. All to no avail. Recently, I noticed that the handsets had been ripped off and the upper part of the phones had obviously been in intimate contact with a sledge hammer. Somehow I doubt that these devices would, in their present condition, serve well in an emergency. Better stickers than the capital punishment for phones metted out by some of the less gentle members of society. Then again... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) (10/08/90)
> [Moderator's Note: Mark and Jeff, your suggestion is *excellent*. I > think there should be two labels made up: the original, and one that > says 'Emergency calls - no coins needed; dial _________'. Then when > auditing the COCOT for compliance, the person affixing the sticker > should detirmine if (a) emergency calls are allowed for free, as > required by law, and that (b) no initial deposit is required. If this > is the case, then put the second label on also. PAT] How does one determine this, without calling 9-1-1? You could just dial 9-1-1 and then hang up, but 9-1-1 PSAPs don't really like this. In fact, the procedure at the ones I am familiar with is to call back and determine what the problem is. If no one answers, they often assume an emergency where someone dialed 9-1-1 as they were being assaulted, so they roll a police car to the address on the ANI/ALI display to see what is happening. Listening to Seattle Police on my scanner, I hear cars dispatched all the time where the description given by the dispatcher is "ANI-ALI hangup call." Maybe you could dial 9-1-1 and say "oops ... wrong number!", or maybe "Telephone Man! Just checking the line!". Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: I do not encourage you to imposter an employee of the telephone company 'just checking the line'. If you must call, just say you are checking to see if 911 is permitted on the line, and vacate quickly. But, see earlier replies in this thread. Given the physical condition of many/most COCOTs, this may be a moot point. Also, the phone probably has a notice on it saying how to place various calls. If the notice says 911 is permitted free, I'd take the owner's word for it. PAT]
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (10/08/90)
On Oct 7 at 15:02, TELECOM Moderator writes: > A sticker > covering the coin slot is the least of the problems with most. PAT] Another liability suffered by virtually all COCOTs and not suffered by utility phones is the requirement for AC power for operation. This problem came to the fore during last October's shaker. There were vast areas without power (not to mention Pacific Gas and Electric Company's normally poor performance) and a number of people were anable to report emergencies from inoperative COCOTs. I remember one time, late at night, when my car was acting funny out in the desert. No cellular service was available (there is now, thank goodness) but there was a gas station at hand. Unfortunately, it was closed and the COCOT was apparently powered from the pump circuit, since it was dead. This was one of the most frightening experiences to date related to a COCOT. So while we're writing our dream tariff list, how about including a requirement for a floating battery backup that will last some minimum of, say, twelve hours? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: John, thanks for yet another reason why I don't think a sticker over the coin slot is all that likely to cause a tragedy. If the COCOT owners really cared anyway, they'd have a lot better arrangement than they do. PAT]
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (10/08/90)
And just how does one test a COCOT to see if it can put
through a call to 911 sans coin? The only way I can think of is to
actually try it, wasting valuable 911 operator time to answer a
non-call. On the other hand, if you never try it, you'll never have
evidence to confront the COCOT owner with, so it won't get fixed, and
potentially somebody will not be able to place a 911 call when they
need to.
Interesting dilema.
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roydwp@cci632.uucp (Dana Paxson) (10/09/90)
In article <13090@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Be that as it may, covering the coin slot is a gentlemanly, civilized >tactic compared to the way the average goon handles an offending >instrument. I was getting out of my car at a local bookstore one night when I saw an angry-looking man whirl away from an outdoor pay phone, and with a simple, powerful, belt-level move like a right hook, he ripped the handset, cable and all, right out of the box. I didn't get in his way. I didn't address the issue in any way ... but I sure remembered it. Dana Paxson Systems Architecture Computer Consoles, Inc., an STC Company 97 Humboldt Street Rochester, New York 14609 716 654-2588
dave%com@ucsd.edu (Dave Smith) (10/10/90)
How about instead of printing "OUT OF ORDER" on the sticker, printing "RIP-OFF" and then have the reasons. This is better in three ways. 1) People dialing for an emergency won't be confused (although the phone may not let them dial 911, but there's no good way to check that.) 2) Even if someone breaks through the sticker with a coin to make a call, people will still get the message that they shouldn't use the phone. 3) They're more likely to tell whoever's running the phone (if they're available) that they're an SOB. A busted phone is an inconvenience (remember, the average Joe isn't going to understand the reasons on the label, they'll just think it's broken); a scam is an outrage. David L. Smith FPS Computing, San Diego ucsd!celerity!dave or dave@fps.com
gillett@ceomax.enet.dec.com (Christopher Gillett) (10/12/90)
In article <13145@accuvax.nwu.edu> Tad Cook writes: >Maybe you could dial 9-1-1 and say "oops ... wrong number!", or maybe >"Telephone Man! Just checking the line!". >[Moderator's Note: I do not encourage you to imposter an employee of >the telephone company 'just checking the line'. If you must call, just >say you are checking to see if 911 is permitted on the line, and >vacate quickly. But, see earlier replies in this thread. Given the As an individual who has worked as a volunteer to various emergency services organizations (fire dept and civil defense), I must strenuously object to the practices described by Tad and PAT. 911, and other emergency services numbers, are for emergencies ONLY and should never be called unless there is truly a crisis. In many areas, dialing 911 (or the equivalent) when there is not actually an emergency is illegal. And while the chance that an unnecessary call will foul something up, or slow something down are admittedly remote, why take the chance? Also, many dispatch outfits will roll at least a police car if they suspect "something fishy" (like maybe somebody trying to attract the attention of the police without giving away that they are actually calling them. Yup, that sounds like something out of James Bond, but it's happened before and probably will again). Why risk a patrol officers life by making him or her drive to a pay phone (at a higher than usual rate of speed), just because you decided to play "wrong number" games with the dispatcher. I consider erroneous calls to 911 nearly as bad as pulling an alarm box just for fun. It's unnecessary, wasteful of resources, dangerous for the ES people, and potentially very costly. I understand the frustration with COCOTs, and I've had unpleasant encounters with several in my travels. But, as much as they are a hassle, my feeling is that they should never, ever be disabled, or made to appear as though they are not in service simply because they don't meet regulatory specs, or because they charge lots 'o dollars to use them. If there's an emergency and I find a COCOT, I don't care if it costs a quarter, or even a dollar, so long as I can get somebody to help by reaching 911, or an operator, or even somebody else who can call for help for me. Let's look at this from a different angle. Suppose, for a moment, that one of you overzealous, frustrated, wanna-be-regulators slaps a sticker over a working COCOT because it won't let you dial until you stick in a quarter. Some unfortunate soul runs up to it to call 911 to report the massive coronary he just witnessed taking place. This fellow sees the out of order sign, and since he doesn't have time to read all the fine print, goes off in search of another phone. And let's just suppose that this fine out of order sign means that it takes an extra two minutes to get the EMTs rolling. If the stricken individual died, and a relative found out that a delayed response contributed substantially to his demise, *and* found out that the delay was caused by one of these phony Out of Order stickers, then the relative would be right to track the lot of you down and sue all of you,as well as the COCOT operator, and anybody else involved. (I can see a sharp rattlesnake bringing suit against anybody acknowledging participation in this "stickering" by alleging some sort of "conspiracy". It probably wouldn't stand up in court, but it could well make your life miserable, cost you a bunch for your own rattlesnake, and net the plaintiff's attorney a ton of free publicity), Yes, COCOTs are a pain. Yes, many do not meet regulatory specification. Yes, something should be done about it. If you want to sticker the phone, then make up a polite sticker, designed to get attention, that doesn't block the coin slot or render the phone totally inoperative. The sticker should ask the reader to not use this telephone and give reasons why. That way, when Joe Passerby wants to call home to say he'll be late for dinner, he might think twice before using the phone. But when urgent help is needed, there's at least a chance that somebody will make the damned thing work enough to get assistance. Just my $0.02 (well, ok $0.50). Usually lurking, Christopher Gillett gillett@ceomax.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation Hudson, Taxachusetts (508) 568-7172 Semiconductor Engineering Group/Logic Simulation Group Disclaimer: Ken Olsen speaks for Digital...I speak for me!
Tad.Cook@beaver.cs.washington.edu (10/15/90)
In article <13482@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gillett@ceomax.enet.dec.com (Christopher Gillett) writes: > 911, and other emergency services numbers, are for emergencies > ONLY and should never be called unless there is truly a crisis. Maybe in your area. In Seattle, you can't call the police to report ANY non-emergency without dialing 9-1-1. One time I wanted to report a car parked illegally on the sidewalk in front of my house. I looked up "Parking Enforcement" in the phone book. They told me to call 9-1-1. "But isn't 9-1-1 for emergencies only?" "NO! Who told you that?" In retrospect, it makes sense. All calls come through a central point, and untrained citizens like myself aren't making judgements on what is and isn't an emergency. By the way, I agree with Christopher's comment that it is not a good idea to call 9-1-1 from a payphone and say "just testing." Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago we are also told to dial 911 for only a dire emergency, where police intervention is needed immediatly. We are not to use it for anything after the fact such as stolen autos, or for that matter, burglaries unless they are going on at the time you are placing the call. We are told in the rules that non-emergency police matters are to be placed with 312 - PIG - 4000, or 312 - PIG and the four digit extension of the desired department or officer if you know the extension you want. Ditto the Fire Department. But in actual practice when you call the local station house (they all have regular numbers in addition to their PIG centrex numbers) about half the time you get told to call 911 and have it filter back to them. The exception seems to be if you are working with a particular detective or someone in one of the tactical units. They like taking their own phone calls direct, usually on their private lines. PAT]
macy@uunet.uucp (Macy Hallock) (10/16/90)
In article <13482@accuvax.nwu.edu> Christopher Gillett writes: >As an individual who has worked as a volunteer to various emergency >services organizations (fire dept and civil defense), I must strenuously >object to the practices described by Tad and PAT. [Description of possbile effects of 911 call deleted] Yes, this can be a problem and the comments posted here are quite valid. I always test the software of the phone systems in install for 911 operation. Not to do so would be negligent. However ... since I know the 911 setup here fairly well, I call the 911 dispatch center who would get the call on their regular POTS number and announce the fact I would like to test from a particular location and number. I have never been refused or treated rudely. In fact, the operators seems quite pleased with the courtesy. My only bad experience is with the City of Cleveland. The POTS number for the 911 dispatch is not published and they took a long time to find a way to transfer me to the dispatch supervisor. After much fumbling and a considerable delay, I was able to talk to a supervisor and proceed. (This is normal procedure when dealing with any governmental unit in major cities, IMHO). > If you want to sticker the phone, then make up a polite sticker, designed > to get attention, that doesn't block the coin slot or render the phone > totally inoperative. The sticker should ask the reader to not use > this telephone and give reasons why. What I want is the opportunity to make an informed choice. I do not want others making the decision of whether or not I can use a particular COCOT based on their opinion of its programming and operation. An information sticker that does not damage the phone, conpsicuously placed, allows me to make a more informed choice. The public can then vote with their pocketbooks, without possibly being denied the use of a phone in an emergency. I still think PUC complaints are a fine idea. The regulators look at the volume of written complaints when making decisions, especially when driven to do so under pressure from the media or legislators. A COCOT vendor with a record of written complaints will be more likely to comply when pressure is applied by the PUC. I have yet to see an example PUC complaint letter that I really like. I have not taken the time to look at Ohio PUC regulations concerning COCOT in any depth lately, so I am not aware of any particularly effective regulations than can be used to deal with problem COCOT's. And I confess that I feel as though embarking in a campaign against COCOT's in this state would be playing into the Phone Co's hands ... they have lobbied hard against COCOT's here, and have thrown up every obstruction to them they could, including rendering the least amount of service they could. All in all, ripping the d*mn things off the wall would be far more satisfying, but the felony charges that would follow would result in considerable personal inconvenience to me at this time. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
tro@uunet.uu.net (Tom Olin) (10/17/90)
gillett@ceomax.enet.dec.com (Christopher Gillett) writes: >911, and other emergency services numbers, are for emergencies ONLY and >should never be called unless there is truly a crisis. Interesting dilemma. How do you suggest that one determine if a COCOT will dial 911 when it is needed without dialing 911 *before* it is needed? I'm not suggesting that everybody start testing all COCOTs once a week, but given the widespread problems with COCOTs, there needs to be some method of detecting and correcting deficiencies, especially potentially life-threatening ones. >If there's an emergency and I find a COCOT, I don't care if it costs a >quarter, or even a dollar... You should care, in case you don't have any change when an emergency arises. But I agree we should not intentionally disable a phone that might have to save somebody's life someday. Tom Olin uunet!adiron!tro (315) 738-0600 Ext 638 PAR Technology Corporation * 220 Seneca Turnpike * New Hartford NY 13413-1191