malcolm@apple.com (01/03/90)
The following annoucement was sent to me by a colleague. I thought it
might be of interest to the list. Maybe the blipvert isn't as far
away as we thought.....
Malcolm
Isn't technology wonderful? --
Phone Spots Inc. (Weston, MO) has received a patent for a device that
places recorded messages in the four second interval between rings of
a telephone. The company is in the early stages of developing one
application, called Freephone Service, for its invention.
The Freephone concept involves distinctively marked, coinless public
telephones that allow anyone to make free three-minute local calls.
Callers will hear short advertising messages between rings while
waiting for the phone to be answered. When the called party picks up
their receiver, the messages stop. Sites for the phones include
airports, hotels and convention centers. Currently there are over
48,000 public pay phones in these areas. Phone Spots expects
advertising revenues to support the service.
VoiceNews, December 89alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo Gariepy) (01/06/90)
In article <2580@accuvax.nwu.edu> malcolm@apple.com writes: > The Freephone concept involves distinctively marked, coinless public > telephones that allow anyone to make free three-minute local calls. I view payphones as an essential public service along the lines of mailboxes, trashcans, fire hydrants, and ...ahem, we won't mention that... Free local-only phones have the potential to drive pay phones out of locations where most of the revenue is generated by 25 cent local calls. That includes almost everywhere but airports and hotels. The result is reduced service. The 25 cents you normally pay for short local calls justifies the existence of a full service telephone that can be used for toll calls and longer local calls. This also bears on the claim that a COCOT shouldn't charge ten cents for 800 calls because they don't cost the owner anything. Ridiculous!! The costs of a tollfree call are the same as a local call to the owner: a monthly line cost and paying the lease on the phone. COCOTs look much better in the long run then these free phones. Most free things are worth what you pay. Commercial television is a good example. Alonzo Gariepy // Think of something original to say; alonzo@microsoft // endless debate is so boring...
John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> (01/08/90)
alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo Gariepy) writes: > This also bears on the claim that a COCOT shouldn't charge ten cents > for 800 calls because they don't cost the owner anything. > Ridiculous!! The costs of a tollfree call are the same as a local call > to the owner: a monthly line cost and paying the lease on the phone. Not true. COCOT owners are charged for local calls the same as any other business. What the COCOT owner makes off local calls is the difference between what he charges and what the telco charges him. 800 calls, on the other hand, cost him nothing at all. Just as 950, local and intralata information, emergency, and repair service cost him absolutely nothing. One of the costs of doing business in the COCOT world is providing the facilities for those free calls. In the case of emergency and repair service, the PUC mandates that these calls be permitted without charge. If you consider public phones to be a necessity of life, how can you justify COCOTs being less of a service to the public than telco pay phones? One of the reasons I have an 800 number is to check my messages from anywhere in the state without being gouged by AOSs. Another is so that I don't have to have change handy. If the only phone in the area requires a dime that I don't have, I am not served. If COCOTs can't provide *at least* the level of service as the telco pay phones, they are extra baggage to society and should never have been allowed in the first place. I have no problem with creating a new industry as long as it doesn't displace a public service that has become traditional over past decades. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
tsn@neoucom.EDU (Tom Napoletano) (01/12/90)
The PUCO, public utility commission in Ohio, mandates that information calls be free to the user, however, the telco charges $0.30 to $0.60 per call to the cocot operator (1411 vs 5551212). [Moderator's Note: Really, I don't see how the telco can get away with charging the COCOT operator either, since technically the COCOT operator is the 'user' of the service he in turn is re-selling to his customer. If telco is required by PUCO to give information for free, then it has to be given for free to all, no? If the COCOT owners would push on this, I think they could get it for free also. PT]
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (01/16/90)
tsn@neoucom.EDU (Tom Napoletano) writes: > The PUCO, public utility commission in Ohio, mandates that information > calls be free to the user, however, the telco charges $0.30 to $0.60 > per call to the cocot operator (1411 vs 5551212). Sounds like all the good people of Ohio need to save up all of their inquiries, walk down to their local COCOT, and make all those DA calls they were too cheap to make at home. They'll get two benefits for the price of none.:-) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !