eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com (Steve Elias) (04/03/89)
The current state of COCOTS and the recent rulings regarding default long distance carriers for pay phones can surely cause one to despair. With regard to pay phones and AOS, divestiture *is* a joke. I think it is mistaken to blame divestiture for these problems. If our pal Judge Hoo-Haa and his cronies had the public's best interest in mind, we might see a few reasonable laws. Allowing crappy AOS companies to charge exorbitant prices without telling the dialer is stupid. There has to be some recourse against these thieves. I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize long distance service. If the pay phones were required to display or speak the rates being applied, the problem would be solved by the free market. The voice equipment necessary for such a task shouldn't be too much -- especially for companies which charge megabucks per minute! sincerely 10333, steve elias (eli@spdcc.com)
john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) (04/04/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0121m06@vector.UUCP>, eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com (Steve Elias) writes: > I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize > long distance service. If the pay phones were required to display > or speak the rates being applied, the problem would be solved by the > free market. The voice equipment necessary for such a task shouldn't > be too much -- especially for companies which charge megabucks per minute! I agree the choice may not be monopolization by one company, but our regulators must understand that free market principles do not apply to pay phones. You cannot shop from phone to phone to find the best deal or even find one that will work. By its very nature, a pay phone is a quasi-emergency device. The one you end up in front of is the one you end up with. If it rips you off, that's too bad. Even in places where you might conceivably shop around, such as an airport, one outfit has the "concession" and there is no choice. An alternative (other than declaring COCOTs a "public utility" item, to be handled only by the utility) would be to require *all* pay phones to give a choice of all carriers that are on an equal-access basis in the area with complete instructions on how to select. Pacific Bell has had phones like this in airports for years. By limiting the selection to equal-access, you would eliminate the scummy AOS people. As it is right now, if it isn't obviously a Pac*Bell payphone, I don't even slow down. If the call is *really* necessary, I pick up the handheld. -- John Higdon john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (04/05/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0121m06@vector.UUCP> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com (Steve Elias) writes: >I think it is mistaken to blame divestiture for these problems. [...] >I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize >long distance service. If the pay phones were required to display >or speak the rates being applied, the problem would be solved by the >free market. The voice equipment necessary for such a task shouldn't >be too much -- especially for companies which charge megabucks per minute! The solution is actually much simpler than voice equipment. The services should be required to connect through the lowest priced LD service unless otherwise directed (by dialing the access code) by the caller. Any machine capable of billing a call can easily find the cheapest rate. Then they could only gouge you for local services. Les Mikesell
cramer@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Clayton Cramer) (04/06/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0123m05@vector.UUCP>, decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john @ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) writes: > In article <telecom-v09i0121m06@vector.UUCP>, eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com > > (Steve Elias) writes: > > I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize > > long distance service. If the pay phones were required to display > > or speak the rates being applied, the problem would be solved by the > > free market. The voice equipment necessary for such a task shouldn't > > be too much -- especially for companies which charge megabucks per minute! > > I agree the choice may not be monopolization by one company, but our > regulators must understand that free market principles do not apply to > pay phones. You cannot shop from phone to phone to find the best deal > or even find one that will work. By its very nature, a pay phone is a > quasi-emergency device. The one you end up in front of is the one you If it's REALLY a "quasi-emergency device", then price is really not an issue. Would you object to paying $2 to make a phone call for an ambulance after a traffic accident? > end up with. If it rips you off, that's too bad. Even in places where If it truly "rips you off" (doesn't provide the specified service) that's quite different from "outrageous pricing". > John Higdon My own experiences with COCOTs are mixed. I recently tried to make a phone call from two different COCOTs, both owned by the same company, and as I got closer to the destination caller, the toll charges they requested went UP. However, it wouldn't actually accept my coins to pay the toll charge, so I was able to make the call. At least it gave me my money back. -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Abandon all hopes of utopia -- there are people involved. Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
rwhite%nusdhub.UUCP@ucsd.edu (Robert C. White Jr.) (04/07/89)
in article <telecom-v09i0124m05@vector.UUCP>, les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) says: > Any machine capable of billing a call can easily find the cheapest > rate. This is only true if the machine knows how long you are going to talk, and by teh time that datum is regestered it's to late to do anything about it. Rob.
straka@ihlpf.att.com (Straka) (04/10/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0126m01@vector.dallas.tx.us> optilink!cramer@ames.arc. nasa.gov (Clayton Cramer) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 126, message 1 of 8 |In article <telecom-v09i0123m05@vector.UUCP|, decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john |@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) writes: || In article <telecom-v09i0121m06@vector.UUCP|, eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com || | (Steve Elias) writes: || | I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize || | long distance service. If the pay phones were required to display || I agree the choice may not be monopolization by one company, but our || regulators must understand that free market principles do not apply to || pay phones. You cannot shop from phone to phone to find the best deal || or even find one that will work. By its very nature, a pay phone is a |If it's REALLY a "quasi-emergency device", then price is really not an |issue. Would you object to paying $2 to make a phone call for an |ambulance after a traffic accident? All of this sure sounds like a classic "natural monopoly" to me. A classic monopoly is where it is "naturally" too expensive for more than one supplier to provide a particular service. This is normally due to some geographic, supply/demand considerations (applies pretty well to the accident reporting case, above). Of course, the airport pay phone is a bit of a different animal. There is enough demand to support several suppliers here. It does appear to the busy traveller, however, that he is facing a slightly less than competitive situation. This is due to a real lack of information about the services the customer is trying to acquire. Anyway, is sure sounds to me like the real issue here is the abysmal lack of consumer information. How can true competition (read that as free consumer choice) exist without free access AND consumer information? DISCLAIMER: I work for AT&T, (and may be slightly biased) but I'll be glad to let the customers decide, as long as they can freely choose with the necessary information to make an intelligent choice. -- Rich Straka att!ihlpf!straka MSDOS: All the wonderfully arcane syntax of UNIX(R), but without the power.
john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) (04/11/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0126m01@vector.dallas.tx.us>, optilink!cramer@ames. arc.nasa.gov (Clayton Cramer) writes: [Regarding COCOTs] > If it's REALLY a "quasi-emergency device", then price is really not an > issue. Would you object to paying $2 to make a phone call for an > ambulance after a traffic accident? In reality *that* call would be free as mandated by tarrifs. What I really object to is paying $3.50 for a one-minute call from San Francisco to San Jose to say I'm going to be late. Particularly when there is no indication that this will be the case. > If it truly "rips you off" (doesn't provide the specified service) > that's quite different from "outrageous pricing". This is a grey area to be sure, but when I call my voice mail for messages and the tone pad ceases to work midway through the session and I am forced to simply hang up, leaving my listened-to vs unlisted-to messages in total disarray, animalistic tendancies come to the fore. You have to be in this position to appreciate the frustration. Perhaps if such phones were required to carry a notice e.g.: "This telephone cannot be used to access voice mail or other DTMF activated services." it would save a lot of trouble. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !