John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (09/21/90)
An informal cruise of COCOTs in the "Post PUC Reform Era", reveals
that little if anything has changed. Every (read that EVERY) COCOT
that I have fiddled with since that fateful day in August when all was
supposed to be made right has at least one significant PUC violation.
Some are still charging $0.25 for local calls. Some restrict 950. Most
restrict 811. A few don't allow end-to-end DTMF signaling. None allow
10XXX dialing. None post rates or instructions on how to access
different carriers.
So what is the point of regulation? COCOT owners will do what they
please, anyway they please. No one will enforce anything in this
arena. I have reported many of the more flagrant violators by phone
and in writing, using a Pac*Bell form designed expressly for the
purpose. Not one reported phone has yet cleaned up its act.
So what is to be done about these things? Personally, I replaced my GE
Mini cellular phone with a Motorola flip phone so that I could always
carry it with me. I'd rather pay a few cents more to a cellular
provider than to COCOT scum. The principle of COCOTs has got to be
near the top of the list of "bad things" to come out of divestiture.
To those of you who have groused about the impracticality of making
international calls from payphones, I have a comment: It will only get
worse. To the degree that COCOTs take over and displace Utility
payphones, casual public use of this country's telephone network will
disappear. Not only is it impractical to call Fiji, it is also
impossible to call across town to retrieve voice mail messages.
Instead of becoming more useful, the public telephone has become
practically useLESS.
COCOTs have certainly played a part in the roaring success of cellular
communications. You don't suppose...
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !dplatt@coherent.com (09/25/90)
In article <12453@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: > An informal cruise of COCOTs in the "Post PUC Reform Era", reveals > that little if anything has changed. Every (read that EVERY) COCOT > that I have fiddled with since that fateful day in August when all was > supposed to be made right has at least one significant PUC violation. > Some are still charging $0.25 for local calls. Some restrict 950. Most > restrict 811. A few don't allow end-to-end DTMF signaling. None allow > 10XXX dialing. None post rates or instructions on how to access > different carriers. > So what is the point of regulation? COCOT owners will do what they > please, anyway they please. No one will enforce anything in this > arena. I have reported many of the more flagrant violators by phone > and in writing, using a Pac*Bell form designed expressly for the > purpose. Not one reported phone has yet cleaned up its act. Well, I've had somewhat better luck, in the one case I've dealt with. I ran into a COCOT in Palo Alto (Liddicoats, on University Avenue) which was in violation of most of the new regs: $.25 for a local call, 950 restricted, 1-800 restricted, 10xxx restricted, no instructions or rates. I called the operator and reported the problem (the PacBell operator tranferred me to her supervisor, who took the actual report). A couple of days later, the phone was still in violation ... so I stuck a laserprinted "Out of order, programming violation" sticker over the coin-slot and checked off all of the violation categories. The next week, most of the violations had been corrected ... $.20 for a local call, 950 works, 1-800 works, and the tonepad wasn't disabled after connection to 950. 10xxx still didn't work. I spoke with the folks at PacBell, and they said they'd need to give the COCOT owners a couple of weeks to reprogram the phone and get someone out to post instructions and rates. I don't think this has happened yet; I may call in a new complaint later this week if the phone is still not quite up to snuff. The two COCOTs outside the Long's in Mountain View seem to have been brought fully into compliance ... the rates are right, there seem to be no invalid dialing restrictions, and the necessary information is posted. So ... things are getting better ... but we aren't there yet. 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
tep@tots.logicon.com (Tom Perrine) (09/26/90)
In article <12551@accuvax.nwu.edu> dplatt@coherent.com writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 675, Message 8 of 9 >Well, I've had somewhat better luck, in the one case I've dealt with. >I ran into a COCOT in Palo Alto (Liddicoats, on University Avenue) >which was in violation of most of the new regs: $.25 for a local call, >950 restricted, 1-800 restricted, 10xxx restricted, no instructions or >rates. >I called the operator and reported the problem (the PacBell operator >tranferred me to her supervisor, who took the actual report). A >couple of days later, the phone was still in violation ... so I stuck a >laserprinted "Out of order, programming violation" sticker over the >coin-slot and checked off all of the violation categories. Perhaps our fearless Moderator can persuade Dave to post the text (or Postscript?) for the "Out of Order" signs? What are the possible violation categories? I have run into many COCOTS that are missing local-call cost and LD carrier info here in the San Diego area, and I would like to leave an appropriate sign behind, to protect the TELECOM-impaired :-) Tom Perrine (tep) |Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM Logicon |UUCP: nosc!hamachi!tots!tep Tactical and Training Systems Division |-or- sun!suntan!tots!tep San Diego CA |GENIE: T.PERRINE |+1 619 455 1330 [Moderator's Note: I hope the original poster will share his program with us here for printing up those labels. Then, let's get busy using them as needed. PAT]
barrey@ka (Barrey Jewall) (09/26/90)
In article <12551@accuvax.nwu.edu> dplatt@coherent.com writes: >> {Much useful info about a COCOT search deleted for brevity} >I ran into a COCOT in Palo Alto (Liddicoats, on University Avenue) >which was in violation of most of the new regs: $.25 for a local call, >950 restricted, 1-800 restricted, 10xxx restricted, no instructions or >rates. >I called the operator and reported the problem (the PacBell operator >tranferred me to her supervisor, who took the actual report). A >couple of days later, the phone was still in violation ... so I stuck a >laserprinted "Out of order, programming violation" sticker over the >coin-slot and checked off all of the violation categories. >So ... things are getting better ... but we aren't there yet. Perhaps if you were able to distribute copies of say, the PostScript file for that little label, and a few hundred or dare I say, thousand of TELECOM Digest's readers were to stick these on whatever COCOT's were found to be in violation, we might see a bit more compliance with the rules and regulations. I suggest distributng a file for the reason that we are a lazy lot here, and if we can just download it and print it out, we are more likely to do so thna if we had to create our own labels. Besides, if they all look the same, the net effect is much better!! I am just assuming PostScript because that is what I use, if another format is more universal, let's go with it.... Anyone else think this is a good idea??? + Barrey Jewall ++ "My opinions are my opinions" + + barrey@novell.com ++ (rather self-evident, eh?) + + Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif.++ + [Moderator's Note: Well, I think it is a good idea! If he will send along a script, preferably in 'c', I will post it here, or in a special edition, depending on the size. PAT]
pf@islington-terrace.csc.ti.com (Paul Fuqua) (09/27/90)
I had my first encounter with a COCOT a few weeks ago. (I live a
telephonically sheltered life -- all the payphones at work and in my
neighborhood are SWBell phones.)
A few miles east of Opelousas, Louisiana, I found a payphone with
no identifying marks, in the same awful housing as the GTE phones at
DFW airport (metal chiclet buttons in supposedly-fingertip-shaped
sockets).
Following the directions on the phone, I tried to place a
calling-card call with 0+504+XXX-XXXX. The phone turned out to be
pulse, not tone, but if I pressed any digit after the first, it
spouted weird tones in my ear.
When I gave up and just dialed 0 for the operator, the phone
pulse-dialed a seven-digit number, at which point I gave up and drove
to the next town, where I found comprehensible South Central Bell
phones.
Paul Fuqua pf@csc.ti.com, ti-csl!pf
Texas Instruments Computer Science Center, Dallas, Texas