churchfield1@ncf.al.alcoa.com (B CHURCHFIELD) (10/10/90)
[Moderator's Note: Today I saved the best for first. Say howdy to Mr.
Churchfield, who wishes to recant and give his public Confession to
the entire congregation here assembled. PAT]
------------------
I own one if these detestable devices, and it is detestable.
In fact I get physically sick whenever I see a payphone now.
I read the Digest daily and find the COCOT flames very
interesting, but quite possibly unfair in some cases. I would quess
that a significant portion of COCOTs are a one or two unit mom and pop
operation, as my own. In my case after going to a couple of Small
Buisness Expos, I became interested in vending to supplement my
income. The one drawback to vending is restocking machines. A payphone
doesn't have that problem; you just take money out. I called a local
vending machine company and sure enough they had payphones for sale
and would get back to me. Next day a salesman called and could let me
have a phone on location that was generating $500/mo in coin and would
only cost me $4500 with a 5/yr location lease. Sounded good but I
wanted to see records. No problem -- that info could be provided. That
afternoon the salesman called back and said that someone else had a
deposit and if I wanted that location I would have to act within the
hour. So "stupid" me bought it.
Once it was installed I am told that the vendor is also the
AOS and that was where the real money would come from (GREAT$$$$!)
I have access to the phone counters as it is intelligent, but
was provided with limited instructions and was told not to play with
them as I would cause the phone to work improperly. My association
with the AOS has been bad. I have been ripped on AOS commisions
constantly as there is no accountability. The location averages
$150/mo in a good month and that is gross; you then have to deduct
telco charges and location commission so I am basically losing money on
the whole deal.
I appreciate Craig Watkins' PA. Regulations for COCOTs in
Digest # 709 as it enabled me to bring my phone into compliance. (The
vendor did not do this on install or any service calls.) But the guy
at "Joe's Bar" or "Jim's Gas and GO" who also owns a COCOT is at the
mercy of the vendor who programmed his phone and is unaware of the
problem. It doesn't take very many $60 service calls to unjam a coin
slot or $100 to replace a handset to put these people in the red, as a
payphone does not make a lot of money. It is not always the actual
COCOT owner who is the bad guy, but quite possibly a vending company
or an AOS who is at the root of the problem.
[Moderator's Note: Thank you, Mr. Churchfield, for an interesting
account of your experience with COCOTery. All of us appreciate your
candor. PAT]peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (10/11/90)
In article <13201@accuvax.nwu.edu> churchfield1@ncf.al.alcoa.com (B. CHURCHFIELD) confesses: > [... a] payphone does not make a lot of money. It is not always the actual > COCOT owner who is the bad guy, but quite possibly a vending company > or an AOS who is at the root of the problem. Do y'all remember the initial message I posted on this subject, asking folks to consider the poor COCOT owner before siccing the federales on them? I think I'm vindicated by this message. In article <13203@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> professes: > But this is the flaw in the whole concept of COCOTs. In a free market, > informed buyers make free and informed choices. So far, this has not > been possible with pay phones. As Mr. Churchfeild's Confession indicates, this is also true for the *owner* of the COCOT. Perhaps instead of attacking the COCOT, point your wrath at the AOS operators/dealers. Peter da Silva +1 713 274 5180 peter@ferranti.com
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (10/11/90)
Mr. Churchfield's Confession brought the fallacy of COCOTs into even
sharper focus. As before stated, the principle of COCOTism is to take
a supplier (telco and IEC) and a customer (person on street) who have
traditionally done business directly with each other via the public
telephone and insert a middleman who expects a significant cut of the
action.
This means that either the supplier has to significantly discount to
the COCOT operator, or the customer is expected to pay more. So far,
it has been both, if not more of the latter. But Mr. Churchfield
throws another whammy at us. A COCOT feeds not one but many new mouths
(owner, vendor, AOS, site owner). And more importantly, the person
responsible (owner) is not the person in control (vendor). Is there
any wonder that the technical violations abound?
Mr. Churchfield's Confession tells me that COCOTs are a bad deal for
all: utility, owner/operator, and customer. So once again I ask the
question: who was supposed to benefit and how in the matter of COCOTs?
With the new Federal legislation, even the AOS operators will no longer
be laughing all the way to the bank.
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !CRW@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins) (10/11/90)
In article <13201@accuvax.nwu.edu>, B CHURCHFIELD <churchfield1@ ncf.al.alcoa.com> confesses: > I appreciate Craig Watkins' PA. Regulations for COCOTs in > Digest # 709 as it enabled me to bring my phone into compliance. Give the PUC a call; their 800 number should be in your phone book in the government section. They will probably take a while to answer (they seem to be understaffed -- big surprise, eh?), but they will probably be happy to send you a copy of the regulations dealing with COCOTs. There are certainly many, many that I did not cover -- I just went after the most annoying ones (to me). Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw
macy@uunet.uucp (Macy Hallock) (10/12/90)
>Mr. Churchfield's Confession tells me that COCOTs are a bad deal for >all: utility, owner/operator, and customer. So once again I ask the >question: who was supposed to benefit and how in the matter of COCOTs? Hmmm... I am certainly no fan of COCOT's. I cannot agree with the conclusions John draws from the facts presented, though. What conclusions would we reach if we applied the same arguments to the AT&T break-up? At one time, the local telco and the sole provider of long haul services used the same argument in an attempt to convince the world that competition would raise costs and damage the network. As most of us have already noticed, the U.S. telephone network still works... So, what is different here? Why are COCOT's, after politicians, the bane of the telecom user? To continue with the same analogy: What completed the tranformation of the US network to successful competition in long distance market, to the beneift of all users (large and small), was the introduction of equal access. This created a level enough playing field that 1+ services compete. In theory, at least, all carriers pay the same rates to the telcos and receive the same services. Once the carriers completed the construction of their networks, and the telcos installed equal access, true competition emerged. In the COCOT business, this is not the case. Ever tried to get answer supervision or Coin Trunk services from a telco? They give it to their own phones, but not on COCOT lines. Ever wonder why AT&T has not entered the COCOT business except in very high traffic locations where high volumes of credit card calling exists (like airports)? They can't get decent, equal coin trunk services from the telcos either. IMHO, COCOT's won't be practical until the CO based coin services are made available to all paying customers. I think the telcos could find this quite profitable if they could only change their monopoly-based way of thinklng. Note: I have intentionally not gone into technical detail concerning the operation of coin trunks and other CO type services. I have also omitted discussion of the cost of back-hauling calls and credit card database access. This has been done to keep this posting to a reasonable length. I'm sure we can cover these topics in some detail on follow up postings. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (10/14/90)
Macy Hallock <aablue.aablue.com.uux!macy@uunet.uucp> writes: > At one time, the local telco and the sole provider of long haul > services used the same argument in an attempt to convince the world > that competition would raise costs and damage the network. But COCOTs cannot be compared to competition in the long haul services arena. If I choose Sprint as my IEC, I deal with Sprint. Sprint does not resell AT&T and mark up the price, it sells me its own LD service and may actually be cheaper. It may even be better. THAT's competition. > So, what is different here? Why are COCOT's, after politicians, the > bane of the telecom user? A COCOT on the other hand, resells me Pac*Bell for local calls (I used to be able to get it directly with a Pac*Bell payphone), and resells me AT&T, Sprint, or Fred's Ripoff AOS (giving me no choice in the matter -- unlike a Pac*Bell phone) and marks the price way up. And unlike a Pac*Bell phone, a COCOT guesses at supervision and always guesses wrong at an unanswered cellular call, since there is a recording telling you that the unit is unavailable. Twenty cents down the drain. In addition, I can't shop because of physical location and convenience restraints. > What completed the tranformation of the US network to successful > competition in long distance market, to the beneift of all users > (large and small), was the introduction of equal access. Yes, I agree. But there is no movement afoot anywhere to bring this to COCOTs. Equal access was a cornerstone of the MFJ; it is a dirty word to the sisters Bell when applied to COCOTs. Unless COCOTs can get coin service from the telco, they will always be garbage. There are those in Pac*Bell who tell me that the COCOT owners/operators want coin lines about as much as an IRS audit. Because of the nature of the beast, a lot of the control of a coin phone goes back to the telco CO. This means less gouging on calls, less "accidental" collection on incompleted calls, no intraLATA bypass, or any of the other shenanigans that COCOT owners have as a trademark. No, coin COS lines are not popular on either side of the asile. > IMHO, COCOT's won't be practical until the CO based coin services are > made available to all paying customers. I think the telcos could find > this quite profitable if they could only change their monopoly-based > way of thinklng. I agree, but don't hold your breath. When neither the supplier nor the customer (COCOT owners) want something, its chances of becoming reality are dim. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu (99700000) (10/16/90)
One thing I learned from this exchange is that owning a COCOT is somewhat similar (except for the amount of money involved) to owning a fast food franchise. That is, someone puts up the money to buy the coin phone, pays for the location, services the machine, etc. A different entity corresponding to the franchisor exists to provide various services such as AOS and maybe scouting out the location and sells these services to the franchisee at perhaps inflated prices. This bears on the suggestion that there should be competing COCOTs side-by-side and the public would choose the one(s) offering better services at lower cost. I think that would work only if the franchisors were able to establish readily-identifiable brand names, and mark their phones accordingly, and advertise. Thus you would have McDingdong's and BurglarKing phones side by side, and the two companies would constantly slug it out in national TV ads, and when you used one of these phones you would expect the same consistent grade of service from one installation to the next. As for me, I'd rather buy stock in a telephone company than buy a COCOT. haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu haynes@ucscc.bitnet ..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes