mholtz@sactoh0.uucp (Mark A. Holtz) (09/19/89)
I am kinda wondering. . . . is there still some areas in this country
that still have payphones for a dime?
The reason why I ask is that the phone company that I subscribe to
(Roseville Telephone), still has 10-Cent pay phones. The Pac*Telesis
system, meanwhile, has 20-Cent pay phones.
*=> Mark Arthur Holtz
<=> AppleLink PE: Mark Holtz <=* *=> 7943 Sungarden Drive <=> GEnie:
M.HOLTZ <=* *=> Citrus Heights, CA 95610-3133 <=> Home: (916) 722-8522
<=* *=> UUCP: {ames att}!pacbell!sactoh0!mholtz <=> "UUCP or bust!"
<=*charlie@uunet.uu.net (Charlie Goldensher) (09/19/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0386m08@vector.dallas.tx.us> mholtz@sactoh0.uucp (Mark A. Holtz) writes: >I am kinda wondering. . . . is there still some areas in this country >that still have payphones for a dime? Yes. Where I live, in Franklin County, Mass., Nynex operates pay phones that cost ten cents for a local call. Unfortunately, that hardly makes up for the lousy phone service we get. (I don't know much about the technical aspects of telephony, but we still have pulse-only dialing. And there was one evening when I couldn't even reach the operator, much less anyone else, even though I had dial-tone. And how do they deal with problems? They "check out the line" and "find nothing wrong". Perhaps the equipment is so antiquated that they don't have many people left who know how to diagnose and fix its problems.) Incidentally, does anyone know why I might not be able to use the 10xxx access codes? Could it be related to the fact that we only have pulse-dialing (or some other aspect of our antiquated system)? Or should I complain to Nynex? When I try one of the codes, I get a (fast, I think) busy signal. Charlie Goldensher charlie@vicorp.uu.NET
morris@jade.jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Morris) (09/21/89)
(Mark A. Holtz) writes: >I am kinda wondering. . . . is there still some areas in this country >that still have payphones for a dime? >The reason why I ask is that the phone company that I subscribe to >(Roseville Telephone), still has 10-Cent pay phones. The Pac*Telesis >system, meanwhile, has 20-Cent pay phones. When I was visiting in Oregon last week all the NorthWestern Bell pay phones were 25-cents, and the ones that I made a point of looking at had long distance service by ITI. When I dialed 10288 I had a 1-in-3 chance of it routing to ITI _anyway_, even when I tried 102880. I didn't have time to follow it up, I just drove down the road some more and finally found a pay phone (which didn't look any diferent) that "took" 10288-0-818-447-7052, and then "bong"ed at me for the billing suffix. Mike Morris UUCP: Morris@Jade.JPL.NASA.gov ICBM: 34.12 N, 118.02 W #Include quote.cute.standard PSTN: 818-447-7052 #Include disclaimer.standard cat flames.all > /dev/null
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (09/21/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0388m04@vector.dallas.tx.us>, vicorp!charlie@uunet.uu. net (Charlie Goldensher) writes: > Incidentally, does anyone know why I might not be able to use > the 10xxx access codes? Could it be related to the fact that > we only have pulse-dialing (or some other aspect of our antiquated > system)? Or should I complain to Nynex? When I try one of the > codes, I get a (fast, I think) busy signal. It is related in so far as a general rule of thumb: If your CO equipment doesn't do DTMF, then it is too antiquated for equal access. All CO switches can be adapted to accept DTMF, but those that have to be adapted don't intrinsically do 10XXX dialing. To my knowledge, there are no SXS offices operating FGD (feature group D). No. 5 crossbar can be adapted for it with an adjunct called CONTAC (we have a lot of that here). However, if CONTAC is installed, then the switch will do DTMF, since that's how the adjunct communicates with the crossbar's originating registers. CONTAC itself would rather see DTMF from the subscriber. It is very intolerant of off-speed rotary dials. Pulses must fall between 8-12 pps or the call will fail (no 20 pps dialing). All electronic switches (ESS, DMS, EAX, etc.,) can run software that supports FGD and all electronic switches intrinsically accept DTMF. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
jay@banzai.pcc.com (Jay Schuster) (09/23/89)
mholtz@sactoh0.uucp (Mark A. Holtz) writes: >I am kinda wondering. . . . is there still some areas in this country >that still have payphones for a dime? Vermont payphones cost a dime. They raised it to twenty cents a couple of years ago and there was an incredible outcry, so it went back down to a dime. Having grown up here, it was a while before I discovered pay phones that cost more than a dime. I think Maine and Louisiana have either nickel or dime pay phones. Jay Schuster <jay@pcc.COM> uunet!uvm-gen!banzai!jay, attmail!banzai!jay The People's Computer Company `Revolutionary Programming'
childers@decwrl.dec.com (Richard Childers) (09/27/89)
uvm-gen!jay@banzai.pcc.com (Jay Schuster) writes: >mholtz@sactoh0.uucp (Mark A. Holtz) writes: >>I am kinda wondering. . . . is there still some areas in this country >>that still have payphones for a dime? >Vermont payphones cost a dime. They raised it to twenty cents a >couple of years ago and there was an incredible outcry, so it went >back down to a dime. When I was in Atlanta for a USENIX a few years ago, I noticed that the phones there seemed to cost a quarter ... But everything else there seems pretty reasonably priced, so it's not on account of the local economy ... >Jay Schuster <jay@pcc.COM> uunet!uvm-gen!banzai!jay, attmail!banzai!jay >The People's Computer Company `Revolutionary Programming' Richard * "Domains constitute a futile attempt to defeat anarchy and otherwise * * retard progress." (Steve Bellovin, Peter Honeyman, pathalias(l)) * * * * ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers *
bobf@uunet.uu.net (BFrankston) (09/29/89)
I'm surprised I didn't see any response on this from the Boston area where all pay phones are 10 cents. When I travel, I still view the 25 cent pay phones as novelties. Bob Frankston