monty@sunne.east.sun.com (Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant) (07/21/90)
I wish to complain (loudly) about various local COCOTs practices of prohibiting access to long distance carriers via 10XXX or 950-10XX and of disabling the keypad after the call is completed. Who should I write to? The FCC? The local DPU? Both? What is the correct person/address to write to at the FCC? Does anyone have any useful boilerplate to use for such a letter? Thanks. # Monty Solomon / <monty@Sunne.East.Sun.COM>
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (07/21/90)
Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant <monty@sunne.east.sun.com> writes: > I wish to complain (loudly) about various local COCOTs practices of > prohibiting access to long distance carriers via 10XXX or 950-10XX and > of disabling the keypad after the call is completed. > Who should I write to? The FCC? The local DPU? Both? Oh, brudder. Get in line. Line forms to the right, down the block, left at the second star and on till morning. Realistically, don't bother. The FCC has on two major occasions admitted that COCOTs stink. They issued a bunch of guidelines, followed by a bunch of regulations with no teeth in them. Guess what! No improvement. I could give you a list a half-inch thick (in fact, the size of the document I submitted to the CPUC) of COCOT deficiencies. The CPUC sent me back a form letter thanking me for my thoughts and ASSURED me that my complaints would be turned over to the appropriate people involved. That was over two years ago. What's changed? Hint: An infinitely small number of things. Oh yes -- the FCC has decreed that COCOTs will allow access to all long distance carriers doing business in the area. That really got the COCOT owners worried. I believe the real penalty for non-compliance is that the FCC will think bad thoughts about the guilty COCOT owner. Has anyone ever--repeat EVER--found a COCOT that allows 10XXX access to multiple carriers? I rest my case. At either the Federal or state level, there will be no change in COCOTs until the agencies devise some mechanism for detection and enforcement of rule violations. The ultimate weapon, disconnection of service, is seldom used since the procedures are so cumbersome and the real arm of enforcement, the local telco, has many other things to worry about. Besides, why would they care? Disconnecting a COCOT would just mean less revenue. In the meantime, the CPUC's latest blatherings about new COCOT rules and regulations are just so much hot air. Frankly, short of tactics that are not to be mentioned in this forum, I have pretty much dropped the COCOT cause. The slimeball COCOT owners are laughing at us all the way to the bank, and the government that can seize computers, throw rock musicians in jail, grab the life's work of a San Francisco photographer, etc., etc., is powerless against the teflon owners and operators of fraudulent one-armed bandits masquerading as payphones. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
smk@attunix.att.com (S M Krieger) (07/24/90)
> > I wish to complain (loudly) about various local COCOTs practices of > > prohibiting access to long distance carriers via 10XXX or 950-10XX and > > of disabling the keypad after the call is completed. > Oh yes -- the FCC has decreed that COCOTs will allow access to all > long distance carriers doing business in the area. That really got the > COCOT owners worried. I believe the real penalty for non-compliance is > that the FCC will think bad thoughts about the guilty COCOT owner. Has > anyone ever--repeat EVER--found a COCOT that allows 10XXX access to > multiple carriers? I rest my case. When I was in Las Vegas last week, my observation was that at least 75% of the public telephones are COCOTs (CenTel is the local operating company). What made things really rough is that the COCOTs I did use looked like the Bell company phones. First of all, besides not supporting 10XXX, these phones do not support 1 (700) 555-2368 either, so users cannot determine the LD carrier without asking. Anyway, when I hit "0" and got the CenTel operator, she said she couldn't connect me to AT&T, and that I should use a CenTel public phone. When I then hit "00", I got a recording telling me how to place the call directly, but to hit a "3" if I need a live person. Anyway, an ITI operator answered, and I asked to be connected to AT&T; she did connect me. Now, I asked the second operator if he was AT&T, and when he said he was, I placed the call through him, asking for the calling card rate. So if I do find an AOS charge on my phone bill next month, I will merely report to NJ Bell about the fraudulent misrepresentation by the LD carrier, and that they should stop trying to collect the money from me for the AOS. Finally, from other sources, I believe the COCOT owner position on LD selection is that as long as they do connect you, they are in compliance with the FCC regulations. Giving customers a choice of LD carrier doesn't mean they have to support 10XXX. Also, what the COCOT owners want for having to support LD carrier selection is payment for the use of their phone, either in the coin slot or from the selected LD company. -- Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (07/25/90)
S M Krieger <smk@attunix.att.com> writes: > When I was in Las Vegas last week, my observation was that at least > 75% of the public telephones are COCOTs Ain't it the truth. And when looking for a utility phone, you have to reverse your COCOT detection methods: look for the stupidest COCOT-looking phone and you probably have found a genuine Centel phone. > Anyway, an ITI operator answered, and I asked to be connected to AT&T; > she did connect me. ITI is right up there as the worst slimebucket AOS on the planet. I cannot believe that you were actually connected to AT&T by someone from that den of thieves. > Finally, from other sources, I believe the COCOT owner position on LD > selection is that as long as they do connect you, they are in > compliance with the FCC regulations. Giving customers a choice of LD > carrier doesn't mean they have to support 10XXX. But what good is carrier selection if there is no standardized way of doing it? I have been able to coerce COCOTs into giving me the AT&T operator using a multitude of methods, but I would hardly consider them to be in compliance with FCC regulations. The average user shouldn't have to "trick" a phone into giving him the carrier of his choice. Asking an AOS operator for another carrier doesn't cut it. And what if you were a user of some other carrier? How would you place the call through Sprint? MCI? Telesphere? What if 950 wasn't allowed (or available)? Unless the slimebuckets can come up with a better standardized way of selecting a carrier, then I think 10XXX is the way. That is the way that the utility phones handle it. > Also, what the COCOT > owners want for having to support LD carrier selection is payment for > the use of their phone, either in the coin slot or from the selected > LD company. No tears shed here. In any business there are certain "pro bono" items that come along. In the COCOT business, one of them is free handling of 911 calls. If the slimebuckets want people to use THEIR carrier, how about making it competitive, posting a rate comparison, and using the generally accepted methods of free market competition rather than technically preventing people from shopping elsewhere. No one is holding a gun to a COCOT owner/creep's head forcing him to stay in that business, ripping off the public. Six years ago, the business didn't even exist, so there are hardly any family traditions in danger of upset. If the scum can't make it with local calls and COMPETITIVE long distance, then replace his garbage with a utility phone which will serve the public better anyway. This area of COCOTs is possibly the MFJ's worst legacy. It takes a 100 year tradition of customers dealing directly with a company and artificially inserts a middleman (the COCOT owner) who SUBTRACTS value from the service who then expects to be paid handsomely for his existence. I know of no other industry that has "value-subtracted" resellers who want such a major piece of the action. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
jmm@uunet.uu.net (John Macdonald) (07/27/90)
In article <10037@accuvax.nwu.edu> smk@attunix.att.com (S M Krieger) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 508, Message 2 of 5 |When I was in Las Vegas last week, my observation was that at least |75% of the public telephones are COCOTs (CenTel is the local operating |company). What made things really rough is that the COCOTs I did use |looked like the Bell company phones. Is it not possible for the Bell companies to sue the COCOTs who do this sort of thing for copyright/trademark infringement? Surely they don't like to have customers compaining about "their" phone booths not providing proper service, etc. This comment about (presumably intensional) look-alike phone booths has been made a number of times in the telecom digest. It sounds like a widespread practice across much of the US - has anyone heard of a Bell company taking action? John Macdonald jmm@eci386