wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) (12/22/89)
The following item was in the latest RISKS Digest; thought Telecom should
have a copy, too...
RISKS-FORUM Digest Thursday 21 December 1989 Volume 9 : Issue 56
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 15:09:01 PST
From: slm%wsc-sun@atc.boeing.com (Shamus McBride)
Subject: Frustrated With Phones
The Bellevue, Washington, Journal American ran an article on
telephone glitches collected from its readers.
o "... a dark stormy night, a desperate woman, a telephone from Kafka".
Using a pay phone at a service station along the highway, she
dialed 0 then the number and the phone went dead. She tried again
and again. She finally reached an operator and found out that (a)
the phone was owned by a private company (not AT&T), (b) collect
calls could not be made, and (c) she could not be connected with
an AT&T operator.
o Another woman received hourly calls with the recorded message
"The maximum dollar amount is exceeded by the number 4-4-4-4-4-4."
The problem was traced to a pay phone at a local gas station with
a full coin box. The phone was programmed to call someone when the
coin box was full. Unfortunately, it was programmed with the wrong
number.
o For six months a woman had long distance calls to Mexico City
on her bill. The phone company finally discovered that the woman's
line was cross wired with a neighbor's line. The twist in the
story was that the neighbor had recently moved into the house and
did not realize it had TWO lines (the phone company had failed to
disconnect the second line when the previous owner moved out).
The neighbor's bill looked normal since most of his calls were on
his primary line. Only when he used a secondary phone were the
calls billed elsewhere.
o One family had phones that rang three times then stopped.
Friends said they called and let the phone ring 20 times
and no one answered. "After extensive investigation [GTE]
found an electronic glitch at a nearby central office."
The article concluded: "the letters we received showed that people are
dependent on the telephone and, when things go wrong, hardly in a mood
to hear a pitch about the values of consumerism. True phones don't go
wrong often, they said, But when they do ..."
***End of item***
[Moderator's Note: Will, thanks for sending this over to us. One of
the sad facts of post-divestiture phone service is that the consumer
is the last person to be considered. Unheard of -- indeed, almost
unthinkable -- problems with phone service prior to divestiture, of
the sort enumerated here, and lots more, became commonplace once the
judge signed off on the most tragic, and misguided legal decision in
American history. Instead of merely giving equal-opportunity to all
new comers (and how could the Bill McGowans of the world survive in a
scenario like that?) they had to bust up a century's worth of
finely-tuned procedures and practices due to the anti-AT&T bias so
prevalent in the court. PT]ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marvin Sirbu) (12/22/89)
>[Moderator's Note: Will, thanks for sending this over to us. One of >the sad facts of post-divestiture phone service is that the consumer >is the last person to be considered. Unheard of -- indeed, almost >unthinkable -- problems with phone service prior to divestiture, of >the sort enumerated here, and lots more, became commonplace once the >judge signed off on the most tragic, and misguided legal decision in >American history. Instead of merely giving equal-opportunity to all >new comers (and how could the Bill McGowans of the world survive in a >scenario like that?) they had to bust up a century's worth of >finely-tuned procedures and practices due to the anti-AT&T bias so >prevalent in the court. PT] The moderator's views about the divestiture are well known, but the problems enumerated in Will's message can hardly be blamed on divestiture. o "... a dark stormy night, a desperate woman, a telephone from Kafka". Using a pay phone at a service station along the highway, she dialed 0 then the number and the phone went dead. She tried again and again. She finally reached an operator and found out that (a) the phone was owned by a private company (not AT&T), (b) collect calls could not be made, and (c) she could not be connected with an AT&T operator. Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephones became possible as a result of the FCC's Carterfone decision (1968) authorizing customers to attach any sort of device to their phone line, coupled with the decision eliminating AT&T's ban on resale I expect the problem was solved through the use of a call trace capability by the local phone company just as it would have been had AT&T been integrated (1980)--both preceding divestiture.. Thus, even without the breakup, we would have been likely to see this scenario. Indeed, it is a common one in France where COCOT's have been authorized for decades and the telephone company is still a monopoly. o Another woman received hourly calls with the recorded message "The maximum dollar amount is exceeded by the number 4-4-4-4-4-4." The problem was traced to a pay phone at a local gas station with a full coin box. The phone was programmed to call someone when the coin box was full. Unfortunately, it was programmed with the wrong number. Again, this problem has nothing to do with divestiture, but could happen with any sort of autodial customer equipment -- even equipment which was forced to operate through the old Bell Protective Access Arrangement which made modems so expensive for us computer users. Even if we went back to the pre-Carterfone days when all autodialers had to be leased from AT&T, it wouldn't prevent a customer from programming a wrong number. I expect the problem was solved thorugh the use of a call trace capability by the local phone company just as it would have been had AT&T been integrated. o For six months a woman had long distance calls to Mexico City on her bill. The phone company finally discovered that the woman's line was cross wired with a neighbor's line. The twist in the story was that the neighbor had recently moved into the house and did not realize it had TWO lines (the phone company had failed to disconnect the second line when the previous owner moved out). The neighbor's bill looked normal since most of his calls were on his primary line. Only when he used a secondary phone were the calls billed elsewhere. There's nothing in this story to suggest that divestiture had anything to do with the problem -- unless you want to argue that the old AT&T never got customer's wires crossed! o One family had phones that rang three times then stopped. Friends said they called and let the phone ring 20 times and no one answered. "After extensive investigation [GTE] found an electronic glitch at a nearby central office." This story doesn't even involve AT&T, and can thus hardly be blamed on Judge Greene. Indeed, one postive consequence of divestiture is that the equipment market has become more competitive, leading GTE to throw in the towel and merge its switch operations with AT&T. This will likely prove quite beneficial in the long run to GTE customers. In short, the moderator should spare us his non sequiters about Judge Greene. Marvin Sirbu Carnegie Mellon University
ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick Townson) (12/24/89)
>The moderator's views about the divestiture are well known, but the >problems enumerated in Will's message can hardly be blamed on divestiture. (Example given: person under difficult circumstances needs to call the AT&T operator from a desolate area with one pay phone; it belongs to someone other than the local Bell; she cannot get through.) >Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephones became possible as a result of >the FCC's Carterfone decision (1968) authorizing customers to attach >any sort of device to their phone line.... >Thus, even without the breakup, we would have been likely to see this >scenario. Indeed, it is a common one in France where COCOT's have >been authorized for decades and the telephone company is still a >monopoly. And France has really great and effecient phone service, don't they? What a great example for Americans! What a goal to strive for! Phone service as good as that in France. COCOTS may have been authorized as of 1968, but they did not begin appearing on the scene until the early 1980's -- once they knew that AT&T was unlikely to find a legal environment friendly enough to stop them. (Example given: woman receives calls from a misprogrammed pay phone telling her the box needs to be cleaned out. This goes on until the call is 'finally traced' to the COCOT proprietor.) >Even if we went back to the pre-Carterfone days when all autodialers >had to be leased from AT&T, it wouldn't prevent a customer from >programming a wrong number. I expect the problem was solved thorugh >the use of a call trace capability by the local phone company just as >it would have been had AT&T been integrated. Indeed, it could happen anytime, but the difference is, now-a-days it is up to the consumer to find out what is wrong, *and convince others*. By this, I mean the lady can call 'repair service' or the operator to report the problem. As far as telco is concerned, there is no problem. *They* don't control the equipment in question, and *their* equipment is working fine...she got the calls, didn't she? And I venture to say when the lady called the COCOT to complain about getting constant calls from one of their phones, she was told to check with the telco. One of the notorious problems since divestiture, now that we get our local service one place, our long distance service somewhere else, and our equipment from a third place, is that all three love to point their fingers at the other two as the troublemaker. In our office, for example, getting the WATS lines repaired is like a three ring circus. The long distance guy says the local telco dedicated circuits to his switch are not working. Telco says it must be our PBX which is not handling the calls correctly. Our PBX guy says call the long distance company. Finally with some effort, I get all three together on our premises at one time, and let them stand there and point their fingers at each other, but none of them leave until my phones are working again. (Example given: people get billed for long distance calls not their own. Problem is found to be crossed wires in the junction box coming into the subscriber's premises. How did the wires get crossed?) Mr. Sirbu notes, >There's nothing in this story to suggest that divestiture had anything >to do with the problem -- unless you want to argue that the old AT&T >never got customer's wires crossed! Yes, AT&T, or more precisely, the local telco did get wires crossed. But that condition is far more common now that the local telco by law cannot work on wires past the point they enter the subscriber's premises. If the telco is going to charge $$$ to come out and install your phone these days, and you have the option of having 'someone else' do the work, then you get 'someone else' (the building janitor, maybe?) who claims to know what he is doing. It is frightening to me to realize that in a large apartment complex or office building, with a big IT in the basement, that anybody and everybody these days who wants a phone installed is free to get in the cabinet and tamper with the wires. So the victim of the cross-wiring with the wrong calls on his bill calls the long distance supplier, and gets a third degree run-around. He calls the local telco, and is told they have nothing to do with the wires in his building or long distance. The building manager says call the telco. The telco says call the long distance company. I am victimized when you moved into the apartment across the hall and your friend said he could save you big money by doing the installation himself! An unusual and rare occurence? Not in the big city in many older neighborhoods. Tenants in an apartment building have gotten into physical fights with each other accusing the other of stealing their service or cutting the wires off entirely, etc. In big, older urban areas like Chicago, multiples come up all over the place in the cable run. You go to the basement of my building -- private property where the telco can no longer under law work without charging a hefty fee -- and you'll find pairs for everyone on this block. So your efforts to wire your phones victimize several other folks in the vicinity. Even novice installers from the local telco in the old days did not bungle things so badly! (Example given: Problem in the switch causes subscriber to lose calls.) >This story doesn't even involve AT&T, and can thus hardly be blamed on >Judge Greene. Indeed, one postive consequence of divestiture is that >the equipment market has become more competitive, leading GTE to throw >in the towel and merge its switch operations with AT&T. This will >likely prove quite beneficial in the long run to GTE customers. In the old days when I reported a condition like this, someone looked into it and repaired it. Now, when I call Repair Service, I am given a third degree questioning: Have I tested every phone in my house? Have I unplugged all but one, tested it, and used a process of elimination? Can I prove it is a central office problem and not a problem on my end? Am I aware that if telco comes out to my premises a week from Tuesday and finds the problem on my end I will receive a hefty bill for having bothered them? I know how telephones work, and I can't get through their questioning at times; what about the average consumer? >In short, the moderator should spare us his non sequiters about Judge Greene. Mr. Sirbu is, of course, technically correct. No matter where you look, you'll not find any piece of paper signed by Harold Greene saying COCOT proprietors are free to screw the (relatively ignorant of telephony practices) consumer. No where did he sign off on anything saying service was to get worse, or that the conditions given in the examples were to be permitted to exist. But....what could he *possibly* have expected to happen otherwise? COCOTS began proliferating once Greene set the pace. Long distance rip-offs began in an agressive way once Greene set the pace. By the court's portrayal throughout the entire divestiture process of AT&T as an evil giant which had to be squashed, everyone understood what Greene was saying, which was that AT&T, in his estimation, was a bad organization which had to be stopped. He could have easily permitted competition without smashing AT&T in the process; but instead, he took a century of fine-tuning and carefully planned practices which had given the USA the finest *totally integrated* phone network in the world, bar none, and indicated his willingness to see it picked apart. Unlike other utilities such as electricity and gas, where your use of the utility is of little concern to me, as to what you attach to the pipes or wires, telephones are different: it takes two to tango, so to speak, and my service becomes worth less or more in large part based on the configuration of your service and equipment. That's what made the Bell System so successful over the decades: One way of doing things; one standard; everyone shape up or ship out. Greene could have authorized competition by telling MCI/Sprint and others they were free to compete; and that they could spend the next century developing a system or network equally as efficient and good as Bell if they desired. You say its not fair to MCI/Sprint to have to spend that long to accomplish it? Who gave AT&T and the Bell System any breaks over the past hundred years? Where did Greene find the moral or ethical authority to force AT&T to sell off its property? Mr. Sirbu is indeed correct: Divestiture was a very narrow thing; it said only a few words, relative to all the water which has passed under the bridge in the past five years; but ideas have consequences, and I can't imagine Harold Greene didn't know that from the moment he first entertained the concept of divestiture in his courtroom. Patrick Townson
John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> (12/24/89)
Patrick Townson, the TELECOM Moderator writes: > In the old days when I reported a condition like this, someone looked > into it and repaired it. Now, when I call Repair Service, I am given a > third degree questioning: Have I tested every phone in my house? Have > I unplugged all but one, tested it, and used a process of elimination? > Can I prove it is a central office problem and not a problem on my > end? Am I aware that if telco comes out to my premises a week from > Tuesday and finds the problem on my end I will receive a hefty bill > for having bothered them? I know how telephones work, and I can't get > through their questioning at times; what about the average consumer? Well, with all of my railings about Pac*Bell, I guess it's time for the equal fairness doctrine. I have experienced none of the above. Yes, the frontline person always asks if I am sure my equipment is OK, but all I have to say to end that thread is tell him/her that I have checked it at the "network demark". That ends that. What follows makes the "old days" look like the dark ages. Within minutes, someone is testing the line (the frontline person performs a continuity test while you're talking to them; you can hear the click and they ask you if you are talking on that line). Within about an hour, a technician calls you back if they need additional information. This person will "talk telephone" with you and does not treat you like an idiot. If you speak over his/her head, you are put on the line with yet another, higher level, person. If the trouble cannot be located in the CO, they will dispatch. And it isn't a week from Tuesday; they are very apologetic if they can't send someone out the very same day (you never wait more than 24 hours, including weekends). Now I'll tell you how they handle businesses. That's when they really haul ass. You phone repair service at 1:00 am and the call-back person (who calls before 2:00 am) will ask (again if the problem requires it) if you can wait until business hours for a dispatch, or you need one *now*. The majority of all service calls are handled same day, usually with an hour or two. What else could you want? I don't know how it is in other RBOCs, but Pacific Bell's Repair Service is first class all the way, and a resounding improvement from the days of Pacific Telephone. This is one area where you can keep the old Bell System. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: The only people in Chicago who get a premise visit *now* (within an hour or less of their call) are subscribers with emergency requirements such as police/fire departments; hospitals, etc. I'll grant you 24 hour turnaround is pretty common. Work in the CO is usually done within an hour or two, even at night provided the office is attended all night. Otherwise its the next day in the CO. PT]
David Lesher <wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> (12/26/89)
Midst the moderator' regular tirades about nasty Judge Greene, I have
never seem mention of ANY improvement from the 'good old days' of
Maximum Control for Maximum Profit.
Well, I'm not as old as the moderator, but I have worked in, and been
both a subscriber and customer for both POTS and variety of special
services in and around the communications business for many years.
Also, I have lived in several metropolitan areas, (with different
BOC's and PUC's) rather than just one. I have traveled and seen other
PTTs in {mostly in-}action.
Here are a few things I can comment on. They all relate NOT to the
divestiture issue that Judge Greene addressed, but to DEREGULATION,
which depending on your point of view, {caused, was caused by} it.
1) Local equipment:
Used to be, you got a 500 set. If you wanted colors other than ebony
("We don't have black phones, that's racist" a rep told me once) it
cost you extra. EVERY month. If you wanted more phones, more extra
MONTHLY charges. A choice?--forget it. Memory dialer--we got card
dialers (ugh) or Magicall (double ugh). PBX, you rent what we offer,
period. Music-on-hold--She don't write music, you can't play someone
else's on her equipment. ACD, what's that?
Until the late 70's, all Bell 2500 sets came with Touch-Tone
generators invented in the mid-50's. They used two special tapped,
tuned, pot core inductors in an exotic circuit. Why? Because when
first designed, transistors cost big money, and this circuit used one,
not two. But why did they continue to build them like that for years,
while other companies had hybrid and IC designs out that cost much
less?
If you DARED to hook up "FOREIGN EQUIPMENT" to their network, they
came out and confiscated it WITHOUT A WARRANT. If you denied him
(never her, unless it was an operator, then always) entrance, goodbye
service. I even have copies of an old SWB employee newsletter
defending this and instructing employees on how to deal with the sub
(NEVER A CUSTOMER) while doing this. A friend of mine who worked for
Ma designed and installed an automatic ringer_counter in several #5
X-bar offices just to detect this "ILLEGAL EQUIPMENT".
Of course, I can't help but mention the answering machine. After all,
it was Carterphone, (reported to be financed by answering machine
companies -- Carterphone sure didn't have the cash to take on Ma in
court) that broke the dike. Maybe the moderator rented (do I hear an
echo?) a 1B answering machine. I never did, because I never had a big
enough house. It was best described by the term "tank" as in Sherman.
Of special interest to UseNet'ers would be the modem. Blazer--you have
got to be kidding. You RENT (there's that word again) our 300 baud
modem. If WE decide you are worthy of a faster one, we will invent it.
Well, their next one was the 202, gawd help us all. Does anyone on-net
think we would be here today if we still moved all the news via 202's
and decvax? Look at the EUNET/EUUG situation for a comparison.
2) LD Service:
In case it escaped your attention, there was a recent rate decrease.
That is 'd' as in down. While we can pontificate ad-nauseam for hours
about access charges, AOS, etc, when in the history of
lock_stock_&_barrel Bell was there a decrease? Plus, I can call from
any local phone and pay direct-dial, not "credit card" rates. In those
good_old_days, such calls cost about 3x as much. If I get po'ed at my
carrier, I can change, just the same way I can buy a Ford instead of a
Olds. Such freedom of choice is important. Ask anyone who has bought a
Lada, for example, if they would not have preferred a Nisson. The
moderator has extolled the virtues of PC Pursuit several times. Would
IT be around if we were still single-sourced?
About the only thing that drove Ma to upgrade their LD network was
when a blind student figured out She was stupid enough to set up the
calls on the same path used to talk on. All of a sudden CCIS was the
hottest thing since Hula-Hoops. If it wasn't for Hi-rise Joe, we
likely would still listen to MF on every call we make. Along the same
topic, I had a couple of friends that were foolish enough to get mixed
up in such toll fraud. (Being in love seems to drive even the most
sensible people to do crazy things. Being such and poor too, is even
worse.) When caught, Ma wanted two things from them. First, how did
you figure it out, and who have you told? Agree to tell no one else.
Second, pay for the calls. If broke, pay a little per month, but tell
us item one NOW. Only when they stalled on item one were they
threatened with criminal charges. Ma's only interest was her fear
others would discover her shortcomings.
3) Special Services
I no longer have an active role in this end of the business, but do
have friends that are involved. While it hasn't gotten a lot better,
it has improved somewhat. Now at least the man at the board does not
go into shock when you talk about 'your' equipment on his line. You
can find someone who at least has some idea about what's going on. I
clearly remember trying to get the rep. to explain the difference
between 3003 and 3004 (I believe those were the numbers) grade leased
lines. They had the same specs, went the same place, got the same
loading treatment, etc. But one was twice as expensive as the other.
He had NO idea, but would not admit it. In my most active days as a
special service subscriber, I used to have to buy Christmas cases of
brew for two local and one Long Lines testboards so they would break
the rules and talk to me about the problems.
The big change is not in the equipment area, but rather in outlook.
The people, albeit slowly, are learning a customer is far more
important that a subscriber ever was. My engineer friend surprised me.
He was *happy* about it. He could go out and buy things from NEC that
solved problems the KS equipment had been unable to handle. He no
longer had all of New Jersey looking over his shoulder. He could go
fiber now instead of 'real soon now' if he needed it.
In short, competition has been good for our communications system.
Sure there are new, different problems. But since Mussolini, the
trains never run on time anymore, either. If the moderator really
relishes those great old days of monopoly control, I STRONGLY urge him
to go live in (or at the very least make an extended visit to) a
European (or Latin American) country, or even better Cuba. Call the
PTT. Get an answering machine, order call waiting and Star-whatever
service. Obtain a Mitel PBX. Set up a UseNet site and call your feed
every day for 7.2 meg of news. Then come back and tell us about it.
What do other TELECOM reader think? Have you seen ANY improvements
since D-Day?
(By the way, who did say you installed those terminal boxes in your
basement?)
A host is a host & from coast to coast...wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu
no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFM
Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335
is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335"Fred R. Goldstein" <goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com> (12/26/89)
In article <2378@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick Townson) writes... >>Thus, even without the breakup, we would have been likely to see this >>scenario. Indeed, it is a common one in France where COCOT's have >>been authorized for decades and the telephone company is still a >>monopoly. >And France has really great and effecient phone service, don't they? >What a great example for Americans! What a goal to strive for! Phone >service as good as that in France. COCOTS may have been authorized as >of 1968, but they did not begin appearing on the scene until the >early 1980's -- once they knew that AT&T was unlikely to find a legal >environment friendly enough to stop them. etc... in an exchange with Marvin Sirbu. I hope the moderator won't censor my "amen" to Marvin Sirbu's comments. I'm also sick and tired of hearing our "moderator" treat Judge Greene like the Spanish Inquisition. I was working in the telecom biz before "divestiture" and while there are certainly problems, I hardly think it's nearly as bad as Patrick likes to claim it is, and most of the problems I see have very little to do with divestiture itself! It's rather like laying blame for the cold weather on divestiture: There's no causality, but heck, wasn't it warm back in the winter of '77? COCOTs are an oddity. They do stem from a set of circumstances that very remotely include divestiture, but mainly they're an FCC creation. Remember "mad monk Mark" Fowler, the Ceaucescu of M St., who ranted his way through his FCC term about "competition" while really doing everything in his power to help monopolies crush it, and mainly screw the consumer. I think I've posted this before, but COCOTs as we know them stem from the following succession of events: 1) Carterfone allowed customers to plug things into phone lines. This was a 1968 decision that broke one of the most noxious monopolies in modern history and made technological progress possible. But Carterfone and the later Registration rules (Part 68) made one excetion: Pay phones. That was because existing pay phone technology would have left too much chance for fraud. COCOTS were invented later, and depend upon microprocessors. So... 2) In the early '80s, the FCC decided to allow registration of phones with coin slots on them. They look like regular phones to the telco line, so the old rules were technologically unnecessary. Of course, you couldn't have made money on them except for... 3) Sharing and resale. In the '70s, the FCC overrode AT&T rules against sharing and reselling lines. Europe, of course, always allowed the monopoly-provided calls to be resold, since the monopoly always got its due. AT&T was even stricter, though, and had allowed no resale. That made Full Time WATS practical, and it was the first casualty. (TELPAK also was a victim of resale.) So if you could resell interstate calls (intrastate being governed separately), you could make money on a COCOT. But how could you handle the big-money coinless toll calls? Enter... 4) Equal access. This part came from divestiture. The idea was to make MCI et al equal to AT&T. So anybody's Long Distance company could get access to Bell bills. At any rate. Thus the AOS scumballs came into being. The FCC has every right to regulate them, of course, as the states can (and do) regulate their intrastate calls. But the FCC seems to like scumballs. All the judge did was require the FCC to treat AT&T, MCI and scum more or less equally, though AT&T's rate setting is still (quite reasonably) subject to increased scrutiny due to its overwhelming market power. I should also point out that it was the Dept. of Justice (again Reagan's ideologues) and AT&T who cooked up the divestiture as a response to an old (1949?) festering anti-trust suit where AT&T appeared to be incredibly guilty. So rather than separate Western Electric (leaving AT&T a PTT-like service provider), as the original suit had asked, AT&T made the deal to keep WECo and become a big force in computers (heh heh). The Judge simply ironed out the most noxious portions of the deal, leaving a few crumbs for the RBOCs. But our revisionist moderator's version of history seems to blame it all on the Judge. Oh well, a nice simple but wrong answer is always easier to spew out than the more complex truth. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 I speak for me. Sharing requires permission.
Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com (12/27/89)
"... a dark stormy night, a desperate woman, a telephone from
Kafka". Using a pay phone at a service station along the highway,
she dialed 0 then the number and the phone went dead. She tried
again and again. She finally reached an operator and found out that
(a) the phone was owned by a private company (not AT&T), (b)
collect calls could not be made, and (c) she could not be connected
with an AT&T operator.
I've run into several COCOTs that have an annoying habit. They're all
owned by "Tele-America." Their COCOTs want $.85 to call my number,
although they'll call other numbers in my building (with other CO
prefixes) for the traditional $.20. Calls to their repair service (211
of all things) yield nothing but a ringing phone. Calls to the listed
800 number for Tele-America yield the same.
Today I called the Public Utilities Commission. I told them the story
and they say that "they'll get their attention."
I say, "May maledictions pursue Tele-America and all their ilk to the
lowermost depths of world slime."
-edg
Ed Greenberg
edg@cso.3mail.3com.comdale@uunet.uu.net> (12/27/89)
I, for one, love the breakup.
1: Some years ago I called (from a neighbor's phone) to report no dial
tone. The operator was not intrested in my troubleshooting except for
whether or not I had checked to see if all the phones were on the
hook. Then I had to guarentee that someone would be home in case they
had to come out.
Two weeks ago I lost dial tone. From a neighbor's phone I told repair
"At the network interface ther was no dial tone but there was
voltage."(PERIOD) Operator said "Can I have a phone number to reach
you in case we need to talk to you?". By the time I walked home the
phone was fixed. No hassles of someone staying home "just in case". My
NTI is outside so there is no reason for me to sit at home waiting.
2: I wired my house when it was built (about 5 years ago). I included
enough wire (4 pairs) to handle most possible wiring schemes. The
wiring is run in a star configuration with the terminus in the
basement (it's a full basement). I have used the wiring for an
intercom also. Sure Bell could have wired it this way way back when
but do you think they would have let me used the extra pairs for my
own purposes. If they had they would have charged me a monthly rate
just to use the wire in my own house! Worst of all can you imagine how
much it would have cost for them to run the wire!
I could go on with examples of what things would be like it Bell still
had the same amount of control but I assume you can extrapolate those
conditions to now. It appears to me that those whining about the
"Good Old Days" have one specific complaint that might not have
existed under the old ways (i.e. problems due to antiquated wiring,
finger pointing, etc.) but then forget about all the additional
problems that existed (or would have existed in today's communications
environment) cause by all that excess baggage. This whinning reminds
me of the person complaining about the paving of the roads because it
causes the horse's shoes to wear out faster. The break up forced the
communications system to become more modular.
Some of the problems of modular systems are the inablility to "fine
tune" and finger-pointing amoung the caretakers of the modules however
an extremely fine tuned integrated system can only grow so big before
it fails under it's own weight. IMHO the time for the breakup was
right. It clearly opened a logjam of improvements. The whiners fail to
see the vast number of small improvements as being better than some
small set of additional problems created. As these improvements become
more apparent and the new problems are solved (or die a natural death)
maybe then they'll shut up.
1981 - IBM PC - It doesn't support CP/M, no software available, no hard
disk, 160K floppy -- don't buy it.
1984 - Mac - It doesn't support DOS, no software available, no hard disk,
128k memory -- don't buy it.
1988 - Next - It doesn't support Mac, no software available, no floppy
disk (????) -- don't buy it.
Dale Frye
Washington University in St. Louis"Robert E. Laughlin" <bel@cod.nosc.mil> (12/28/89)
The moderator's comments boil down to "IF IT AINT BROKE DON'T FIX IT!" I tried to tell people that during the trial(?), but no body listened; too bad now we ALL suffer to "get the advantages of competition in long distance telephoning." bel
tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) (12/31/89)
I was chatting with someone at the PUC for Washington State recently, and found out that they are very interested in hearing about COCOTs that won't reach either the repair or refund numbers posted on the phones. These numbers are supposed to be free. I have found a BUNCH of COCOT phones around Seattle that say to dial 211 for refund and 611 for repair. Often I hear the phone outpulsing a 7 digit number in response to these 3 digit codes. On many of the phones I get a response of "call cannot be completed as dialed." Our PUC has an 800 number. A call to the PUC with the location and telephone number of the phone has resulted in DISCONNECTION of the non-complying phone every time. The fellow at the PUC told me that these are usually phones owned by someone who has NO concept of how the phone system works, the legal requirements, or how to program the thing. COCOT companies that operate the phones are usually more in compliance. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA MCI Mail: 3288544
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/01/90)
In article <2497@accuvax.nwu.edu> tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: > Our PUC has an 800 number. A call to the PUC with the location and > telephone number of the phone has resulted in DISCONNECTION of the > non-complying phone every time. Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who (as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements. How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first? It's only common courtesy. Of course if you *have* tried this route, I apologise for jumping to conclusions. But you didn't give any indication you have. For other people: before using the power of the state, how about trying old-fashioned *communication* first... in this and other cases? You're all communications experts (or at least talented amateurs) after all... `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (01/02/90)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who > (as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements. > How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first? Don't you think that we, the public, are put upon enough with COCOTs in general without having to hold the hand of someone who should be aware of the rules and regs of his business BEFORE he foists his instrument of annoyance on us all? In the matter of COCOTs, I have wasted way too much time trying to track down owners of same to inform them of things they should already know. My clients' listeners go straight to the FCC for perceived violations, as well they should. Ignorance of the law, no matter how small the business, is no justification for not following the rules. > For other people: before using the power of the state, how about > trying old-fashioned *communication* first... in this and other cases? > You're all communications experts (or at least talented amateurs) > after all... In other circumstances I might agree, but the public has little enough support as it is from regulatory bodies concerning COCOTs. If it became known that violation of the few customer protections in place would result in summary disconnection, maybe more COCOT operators would obey them in the first place, instead of trying to see what they could get away with up front. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/04/90)
John Higdon described how he got certain COCOTs owned by small businesses
disconnected by complaining to the guvmint.
I responded:
Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who
(as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements.
How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first?
John's response:
> Don't you think that we, the public, are put upon enough with COCOTs
> in general without having to hold the hand of someone who should be
> aware of the rules and regs of his business BEFORE he foists his
> instrument of annoyance on us all?
Well, he could just not provide a public telephone at his place of
business at all. That's a valid option. Lots of places do that. I'd
much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than
have to put up with "no, we don't allow phone calls... but the
laundromat across the street there has a public phone: there's a
traffic signal a block east".
The guy's providing a service. There's no law saying he has to make a
phone available to the next guy who walks in off the street.
> In the matter of COCOTs, I have
> wasted way too much time trying to track down owners of same to inform
> them of things they should already know.
Well, if you're there you can walk up to the person behind the counter
and say "Excuse me, do you know that the law says so-and-so? Could you
let the owner know?". If that doesn't get results, go ahead and use
your nuclear option. But it doesn't take *any* time at all for you to
try the easy route first.
> My clients' listeners go straight to the FCC for perceived violations,
> as well they should. Ignorance of the law, no matter how small the
> business, is no justification for not following the rules.
One of the biggest problems in this country, in my opinion, is people
like you who think that it's OK to bring the force of the law to bear
on someone. Yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But a measured
response to an irritation is only common courtesy. More courtesy and
less legal excrement can only help the situation.
[ If it were known that violating the law, even accidentally ]
> would result in summary disconnection, maybe more COCOT operators
> would obey them in the first place, instead of trying to see what they
> could get away with up front.
You're attributing motivations to the owners of these COCOTs that
might not be there. Many people can't even program a VCR reliably,
you know.
And the very people who are likely to be the subject of your ire are
the people least likely to know they're in danger of summary
disconnection. No matter what you do.
And you might find that the response will be for them to pull the
phone out completely, and direct walk-ins to the laundromat down the
block and across the street. I'm sure you have no problems with that.
No legal ones, anyway.
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/ `-_-'\ Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>
\_.--._/
vtad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) (01/04/90)
I was interested to read Peter da Silva's comments about my posting regarding disconnection of COCOTs. At the time that I wrote it, I was a bit concerned that my posting sounded a little heavy handed. Actually, I have tried communication with the owners of the offending COCOT phones....but get nowhere. Often the guy at the gas station or convenience store says they don't know anything about it. Also, in this state it is a requirement that these phones have the name, address, and phone number of the COCOT owner displayed, along with a coin-free method of reaching them for repair or refund. In each case, my complaint revolved around the fact that the phone could not reach these numbers. Actually, I am not anti-COCOT. I also think that the tarrifs on COCOTs are awfully steep, especially since the telco wont give them answer supervision. But I also expect to be able to reach the operator of each COCOT, as provided by law. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP
toddi@gtisqr.UUCP (Todd Inch) (01/05/90)
In article <2520@accuvax.nwu.edu> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <2497@accuvax.nwu.edu> tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: >> Our PUC has an 800 number. A call to the PUC with the location and >> telephone number of the phone has resulted in DISCONNECTION of the >> non-complying phone every time. >Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who >(as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements. >How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first? Although this would be the polite thing to do, and I would probably try it first myself, I disagree that a person is being unreasonable or rude by calling the PUC instead. Since I'm not at all connected with the telecom biz I may misunderstand some of the details, but it seems that if you are going to provide telephone service of any type to the public, through a privately owned coin phone in this case, it is your responsibility to know what you're doing and to make sure you've followed all the regulations. The public should be able to hold you accountable for this. If you don't know what you're doing, you should hire a knowledgable consultant. If I were in the restaurant business, for instance, I'd have to understand sales tax, health regulations, etc. (Hmmm . . . should a customer tell me about gross things he found in the hamburger, or just call the Health Dept?) There are plenty more examples. I assume that the phones in question are intended to make profits or to support another business (hotel, etc) which make profits. I wouldn't feel quite so strongly about this if the phone were truly a public service rather than a revenue-generator. There is already too much confusion in the telecommunication business which the consumer has to deal with. I can do without more naive business people trying their hand at these new markets. It IS reasonable to try to keep others from having trouble with a problem (billing, operation, or whatever) phone by having it shut off. How easy would it be to find the owner/operator of the phone, let alone convince him of the problem? Most of the times I've tried to convince a business that they have a problem, either I can't find the right person or they don't care. I've found this to be true of even very small business that you'd think would want your input. Kinda sad. That's my $.02 worth, anyway. Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu "You are the booger in the nose of my life." - My wife, to me. (Jokingly?) Disclaimer: My boss will read this while checking up on me and will disagree.
John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> (01/05/90)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > John Higdon described how he got certain COCOTs owned by small businesses > disconnected by complaining to the guvmint. I would be proud to claim credit for disconecting one of these monsters, but unfortunately you are miscrediting someone else's success to me. But moving on... > Well, he could just not provide a public telephone at his place of > business at all. That's a valid option. Lots of places do that. I'd > much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than > have to put up with "no, we don't allow phone calls... but the > laundromat across the street there has a public phone: there's a > traffic signal a block east". What you seem to be saying here is "better a COCOT than nothing at all." Well, that's debatable, but not an issue. I can't speak for your area, but here in the Bay Area the onslaught of COCOTs did not mean an increase of public phones, but the wholesale replacement of Pac*Bell phones with COCOTs. This is my main complaint. If all the *real* public phones remained and COCOTs showed up where there had been no pay phones before, your argument would be valid. Actually, in some cases COCOTs did show up near Pac*Bell phones, but eventually the Pac*Bell phones were removed because the COCOTs couldn't survive with real phones within sight. Yes, I checked with the store owners; it was that way, not the other way around. > The guy's providing a service. There's no law saying he has to make a > phone available to the next guy who walks in off the street. No, but the Pac*Bell phone he used to have was somewhat superior to the COCOT which took its place. His shiney new COCOT may cough up more money for him, but it is certainly not as much service for his customers. > Well, if you're there you can walk up to the person behind the counter > and say "Excuse me, do you know that the law says so-and-so? Could you > let the owner know?". If that doesn't get results, go ahead and use > your nuclear option. But it doesn't take *any* time at all for you to > try the easy route first. Invariable answer: "I don't know anything about the phone. You'll have to call the number on the card." Card says call "211". Reaches disconnect recording, doesn't answer, or reaches answering machine. Leaving message is futile. There was one notable exception on a phone outside of a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet. I reached a live person to whom I complained about not being able to access AT&T. I was given a lengthy discourse on how they wouldn't make any money of they allowed this. "How would you like it if you had people using your telephone all the time and you didn't get anything out of it?" In other words, the kickbacks weren't big and fat like those from his ripoff AOS. It was much nicer when that was a Pac*Bell phone. I even used it then. > One of the biggest problems in this country, in my opinion, is people > like you who think that it's OK to bring the force of the law to bear > on someone. Yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But a measured > response to an irritation is only common courtesy. More courtesy and > less legal excrement can only help the situation. Don't you think it is a bit naive to think that the average person is supposed to be more knowledgeable concerning telephony regulations than those in the business? How many people do you suppose a misprogrammed COCOT will rip off before a knowledgeable person finally uses it and does something about it? Of the somewhere between 50 and 100 times I have complained to COCOT operators about their non-compliant phones, not one has ever done anything to correct the condition(s). Your even-handed approach is wasted on this particular breed of businessman. Oh, and I wish you would avoid the phrase, "people like you". Those who know me are fully aware that in matters concerning "legitimate" businesses, I am most patient and long suffering. As a broadcaster, I almost never involve the FCC in any problem with a fellow broadcaster. But we're talking about people who are well informed and have a desire to comply with the standards of their business, not the "get rich quick" people in the COCOT racket. > You're attributing motivations to the owners of these COCOTs that > might not be there. Many people can't even program a VCR reliably, > you know. True, but they aren't in charge of a television station, either. If a person doesn't know anything about the telephone business, why is he subjecting the public to the consequences of his ignorance? I always thought that people got into business because they had some expertise to contribute or at least some interest in their endeavors. Lacking any of that, IMHO their motivations are indeed suspect. > And you might find that the response will be for them to pull the > phone out completely, and direct walk-ins to the laundromat down the > block and across the street. I'm sure you have no problems with that. As a matter of fact, a COCOT was yanked from a 7-eleven near my home. A Pac*Bell phone took its place. I certainly had no problem with that! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/07/90)
> I was interested to read Peter da Silva's comments about my posting > regarding disconnection of COCOTs. At the time that I wrote it, I was > a bit concerned that my posting sounded a little heavy handed. Yeh, a little. :-> I also seem to have gotten you confused with John Higdon. > Actually, I have tried communication with the owners of the offending > COCOT phones....but get nowhere. That's different, then. I withdraw my complaint with you. I still think that there's a general problem with people shooting from the hip and calling the law in long before it's reasonable. Legal action should be a last resort, not the first thing you consider. First, I apologise for confusing you with the person who really posted the article, but... > Invariable answer: "I don't know anything about the phone. You'll have > to call the number on the card." Card says call "211". Reaches > disconnect recording, doesn't answer, or reaches answering machine. Then you've got a reason to call the PUC. But my point is that there was no indication that the person involved had made such an attempt. And that's what I was complaining about. > Oh, and I wish you would avoid the phrase, "people like you"... Again, I publicly apologise for the misunderstanding. Thinking back on it, what with I remember of your stand on Caller ID and similar subjects, getting lumped in with people like that must have really hurt. _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org> \_.--._/ v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
Bernie Cosell <cosell@bbn.com> (01/07/90)
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: }peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: }> Well, he could just not provide a public telephone at his place of }> business at all. That's a valid option. Lots of places do that. I'd }> much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than }> have to put up with "no, we don't allow phone calls... but the }> laundromat across the street there has a public phone: there's a }> traffic signal a block east". }What you seem to be saying here is "better a COCOT than nothing at }all." Well, that's debatable, but not an issue. I can't speak for your }area, but here in the Bay Area the onslaught of COCOTs did not mean an }increase of public phones, but the wholesale replacement of Pac*Bell }phones with COCOTs. This is my main complaint. If all the *real* }public phones remained and COCOTs showed up where there had been no }pay phones before, your argument would be valid. I don't understand quite how this applies at all. Are the various RBOCs under some obligation to provide "public phones"? Could not *all* public phones, telco and cocot alike, all go away tomorrow if the various owners/operators chose? There are two kinds of pay phones in the world as far as I can tell --- really public ones [which means NOT on private property: like an outside phone booth on the corner] and public-service ones [where some private person has made arrangements to have a publicly accessible phone on their property]. For the latter, much as I despise COCOTs, I'm not sure I have anything to say about it, just as Peter points out. As for the former ones, I don't have a clue if there is some real set of public regulations requiring some density of those suckers or not, but it seems to be the only place where we can legitimately have a gripe: if there *is* such a standard, then I think it is exactly right that we bitch if there are not an adequate number of the really-public phones of a "socially reasonable" type, either real-local-telco, or COCOT with rational firmware. If there is NOT such a standard [or if the reality is that there are already "enough" of the public-public phones in the area], then there's not much to complain about [other than to try to get the standards changed]. In either event, I don't think we should have any particular way to tell the local hardware store what sort of phone they must/cannot provide. }> The guy's providing a service. There's no law saying he has to make a }> phone available to the next guy who walks in off the street. }No, but the Pac*Bell phone he used to have was somewhat superior to }the COCOT which took its place. His shiney new COCOT may cough up more }money for him, but it is certainly not as much service for his }customers. Sounds like the American way. Why should he have one type of phone service or another for YOUR convenience? It pisses me off that I can't get "New Scientist" at the local news stand, but that's life --- he runs his business as he sees fit, and I take my business where I think my needs are best served. How else would you have it? /bernie\
John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> (01/08/90)
Bernie Cosell <cosell@bbn.com> writes: > Sounds like the American way. Why should he have one type of phone > service or another for YOUR convenience? It pisses me off that I > can't get "New Scientist" at the local news stand, but that's life --- > he runs his business as he sees fit, and I take my business where I > think my needs are best served. How else would you have it? Why, no other way at all. And I am perfectly entitled to take my business else where if the merchant demonstrates his attitude toward his customers by have a COCOT. This is no joke. A COCOT was replaced by a Pac*Bell phone in a restaurant that I frequent. When I enquired of the owner (whom I know personally), she said that the complaints that she was getting indicated to her that customer relations were being damaged slightly. Since her customers meant more to her than some extra nickels from the pay phone, she switched. Yes, she did it for her customers' convenience because she values her customers. I would assume that if you can't get "New Scientist" at your local news stand, you go somewhere else rather than throw up your hands and say, "that's life". And let your local merchant know it! 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) (01/09/90)
In response to the posting by /bernie\, yes the PUC usually requires the telco to put payphones in lots of areas that they dont want to, for public convenience. The telcos complain that the COCOTs naturally take the "good" locations. Again, I am not anti-COCOT or pro-telco, even though I am the guy who calls the PUC and gets them removed. Oh, and another thing about removal. It doesn't happen without warning. The COCOT owner gets a letter explaining the problem, and is given time to correct it. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP
ellisond@ncar.ucar.edu> (01/10/90)
In article <2596@accuvax.nwu.edu>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > ... I'd > much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than ^^^^^^ ??? Sorry, but that's where I differ in opinion, which might be what it comes down to: everyone's own opinion. But, (IMHO) I would much rather have a little problem of finding a valid payphone than have to deal with the rip-offs by mail.