Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA05732; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:04:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:04:06 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711230304.WAA05732@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #323 TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Nov 97 22:04:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 323 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Payphone Operator Compensation for Coinless Calls (Jim Weiss) Toll-Free Pay Phone Access Fees (was: SkyTel Blocks Access) (Adam Kerman) Service Map of Local Carriers in Southern California (Doug McMillan) E-Rate Information (Win Himsworth) GTE Directory Fiasco in Sierra Madre (Craig Milo Rogers) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (J Hennigan) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (A Boritz) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (S Cline) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (E Florack) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (S Miller) Re: Mis-Programmed COCOTs (David W. Levenson) Re: Mis-Programmed COCOTs (Alan Boritz) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: NBJimWeiss@aol.com (Jim Weiss) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:39:23 EST Subject: Payphone Operator Compensation for Coinless Calls In October the FCC approved a payment of 28.4 cents per call to be paid to payphone operators by the long distance companies for coinless calls (800/888, dial-around, etc). The long distance carriers are apparently going to pass this charge through to their customers by charging them $.30 to $.35 for each 800/888 call received from a payphone. Where do the carriers (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, WorldCom, etc.) stand in implementing procedures and notifying their customers of this new call "surcharge?" ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Toll-Free Pay Phone Access Fees (was: SkyTel Blocks Access) Date: 20 Nov 1997 12:11:46 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article this item: > > FCC Ruling Affects Pay Phone Users > The Telecom Act of 1996 (Docket No. 96-128) has mandated that a fee be > paid by phone companies (AT&T, MCI, Sprint) to Pay Phone Service > Providers for all non-emergency calls originating from pay phones, > effective Nov. 17, 1997. Pay phone service providers and long distance > carriers will be charging a combined total $.30* access fee for each > call to an 800/888 number made from a pay phone ... > *The pay phone service providers are charging $0.284 each, and the > long distance carriers are charging an additional $0.016 each, for a > combined total of $0.30 for each call. What is the $0.016 for? Is this what the long distance companies claim that it costs them to pay the fee to pay phone service providers? Isn't this significantly higher than other revenue-sharing arrangements? Congress really had nerve doing this last year. This fee should only have been paid if pay phone service providers met minimum standards, such as: No blocking of any toll-free number, with penalties for doing so. Clearly identifying the pay phone service provider and default interLATA IXC. Clearly identifying the pay phone number. Clearly identifying repair service number. Prompt resolution of repair complaints and billing disputes. (if the caller was unable to complete the call, why should the holder of the toll-free number have to pay the surcharge?) Clearly identifying regulatory bodies. In any event, if the pay phone blocks incoming calls, they should not be able to collect this fee if the purpose of the call to the 800 number is to initiate a callback. Is this possible? Is there a flag within SS7 that identifies that this line blocks incoming calls? What safeguards prevent an unscrupulous PBX owner from routing all calls to toll-free numbers via a line set up with the LEC as working from a COCOT? ------------------------------ Reply-To: mcmillan@malibuonline.com From: Doug McMillan Subject: Service Map of Local Carriers in Southern California Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 08:13:41 -0800 I am looking for a service area map of local carrier availability in Southern California. Actually a simple demarcation of Pacific Bell versus GTE would do nicely. Phone companies unwilling to help. Is there anything on the net? Thank you. Douglas McMillan mcmillan@malibuonline.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:21:43 -0500 From: himsworth@aol.com (Win Himsworth) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: E-Rate Information I have not seen any postings re. the new federal telecom discount program for schools (the so-called E-rate program), libraries, and rural health facilities available under the expanded Universal Service Fund. You may be interested in the attached memo summarizing the program from a school's perspective. Win Himsworth -------------------------- The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was the first major rewrite of the nation's communications laws since 1933, included an amendment sponsored by Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Exon, and Kerrey to provide discounted telecommunications rates for K-12 schools and public libraries. The discounts are to be financed out of a portion of the Universal Service Fund into wh ich virtually all telecommunications carriers contribute. Detailed regulations to implement the discount program (often called the 93E-Rate Plan94) were delegated to the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC.20 Initial regulations were released in the form of an FCC Order dated May 7 , 1997, and a subsequent Order on Reconsideration dated July 10, 1997. The regulations will provide schools and libraries with discounts ranging from 20-90% on basic and advanced telecommunications services, Internet services, and internal connections. Discounts may total over $2 billion annually and are set to begin January 1, 1998. This memorandum summarizes many of the key aspects of the telecomm- unicaions service discount program for both schools and libraries, and suggests sev eral strategic issues that should be addressed early on to maximize expected p rogram benefits. Highlights: The FCC Order on Universal Service provides telecommunications service discounts for all public and most private K-12 schools and public libraries. The discounts may be applied to the rates for all commercially available telecommunications services (including local and long distance telephone services), Internet access (but not content), and internal connections required to bring these services into classrooms. The last includes routers, hubs, network file servers, wired or wireless LANs, and related installation and basic maintenance. General computer equipment is not included. An administrative process is being developed requiring schools to submit funding requests on an annual basis (for services provided after January 1, 1998) and to establish a competitive bidding mechanism for telecommunications equipment and service suppliers. Approved services will be billed to the schools at the discounted rate. The Schools and Libraries Corporation will oversee the program and reimburse the suppliers for the discounts through the Universal Service Fund. An annual cap of $2.25 billion has been established for funded discounts. Although the FCC has estimated that this amount will be sufficient for full program funding, rationing provisions are included to deal with annual shortfalls. The level of discounts available to a particular school is to be governed by the affluence of the community as determined by the percentage of its students eligible for the national school lunch program (or an equivalent measure). For libraries, the discount is based on the surrounding school district's rate. The discount schedule is shown below. Students Eligible for Lunch Program Urban Rural < 1 % 20 % 25 % 1-19 % 40 % 50 % 20-34 % 50 % 60 % 35-49 % 60 % 70 % 50-74 % 80 % 80 % 75-100 % 90 % 90 % Timing Issues: Schools and libraries wishing to avail themselves of the maximum funding benefits should consider the following strategies, tactics, and issues: 1. Begin preparing now to submit applications at the earliest possible date (curently scheduled to be no earlier than mid-January). Given the n ormal administrative problems expected in any new organization, and the expected flood of applications, there is likely to be a major advantage to being first in queue. 2. Getting approval for funding early in the year will be particularly important if the FCC has underestimated the demand for discounts. Once funding approvals exceed $2 billion, the $250 million remaining under the annual cap will be rationed and allocated among the less affluent schools. 3. Telecommunications services, particularly the costly installation o f internal communications systems already budgeted for calendar 1997 should be reviewed carefully with consideration being given to deferring formal service origination to 1998 so as to fall under the discount program. Administrative Issues: As with many government programs, there will be certain administrative resources involved in obtaining telecommunications service discounts. Al though many application details are not yet known, the FCC Order identifies the following key administrative requirements: 1. Applications will require a technology inventory and assessment. Specific plans must be identified for using new technologies and for integrating them into the curriculum. Some form of independent approval of the state and/or other agency of an applicant's technology plan will be required. Plan approval in the first year of the program may reflect more flexible standards than in subsequent years. 2. Applications must describe the telecommunications services a school or library seeks to purchase in sufficient detail (up to and including a formal RFP) so that potential suppliers can formulate bids or inquiries. The SLC will post these requirements on an Internet site for review by interested suppliers. 3. Persons submitting applications will be required to certify under oath as to the entity's eligibility, use of services, and available funding for the non-discounted portion of the services purchased. 4. Notice of new or existing contracts must be sent to the SLC for funding and purchase order approval. Notification that a service has been received must also be made to the SLC in order that the supplier can recoup the discount. 5. Appropriate records must be maintained to monitor retroactive discounts for the first quarter of 1998 and to assist in possible SLC or FCC audits. The above administrative requirements suggest the following strategies, tactics, and issues: 1. Initial applications are likely to be time and labor intensive. Simply making an inventory of existing contracts may be time consuming. As previously noted (see Timing Issues above), there are advantages to starting now and to being early in the processing queue. 2. Contracts signed before the FCC92s program administrator is ready to post bids on the web (mid-January or later) are exempt from the competitive bidding requirement. Contracts under negotiation now (for services to be delivered in calendar 1998) should probably be accelerated to avoid transitional delays in the contract 'blackout' period. 3. Particular attention should be paid to the technology plan. It may be advantageous to re-write an existing plan to stress and/or re-categorize telecommunications-related budgetary items. It may also prove beneficial to undertake an audit of current telecommunications services and billings as a part of the required technology inventory and assessment. 4. School and library administrators accustomed to working with state and federal educational agencies will need additional expertise in dealing with various telecommunications agencies including the FCC, state public untility commissions, and the SLC and its subcontractors. This memorandum was prepared by: Educational Telecom Services, A division of Tel/Logic Inc. 51 Shore Drive Plandome, NY 11030 E-mail: himsworth@aol.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Readers would be doing a very good public service to the libraries and schools in their communities by printing out the above and making sure it is placed in the hands of local school and library administrators, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:28:20 PST From: Craig Milo Rogers Subject: GTE Directory Fiasco in Sierra Madre Organization: USC Information Sciences Institute Today's {LA Times} reports that GTE made an unusual blunder when preparing this year's telephone directory for the city of Sierra Madre, a suburb of Los Angeles, CA. GTE included the residents of neighboring communities in the directory, but omitted the residents of Sierra Madre, itself. Kinda gives new meaning to "unlisted number" service. GTE is preparing replacement directories, according to {LA Times}, and it is not necessary to keep the defective ones until they expire. Craig Milo Rogers ------------------------------ From: jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: 21 Nov 1997 07:23:48 GMT Organization: West.Net Communications On 20 Nov 1997 02:58:47 GMT, Lisa Hancock wrote: > The article first said police were only blocks away, but then said > calls were routed through the state police. In most (all?) of California, cellular calls are routed to the state Highway Patrol. When cellular first came online, the calls were typically routed to the PSAP (public safety answering position) serving the MTSO (mobile telephone switching office). This caused a number of problems. The local cops quickly learned to stop responding to 9-1-1 hangup calls at that funny phone company building with the big tower. Consider that it's not uncommon for cell sites to be 75 miles away from the serving MTSO. So someone dialing 9-1-1 to report an emergency may be connected to a PSAP in a different county. With a number of geographically small jurisdictions this caused numerous delays in forwarding the call to the correct agency. Shortly after cellular service came online, routing was changed directing 9-1-1 calls to the CHP. Routing to the Highway Patrol made sense. In the early days, most cellular phones were permanently installed in cars. Thus, most cellular calls to 9-1-1 were related to a vehicular problem such as a traffic accident. Also, the CHP dispatch centers cover wide areas, and they deal with mutual aid situations to local police, sheriff, ambulance, and fire agencies regularly. It is still probably the best choice until technology to routinely isolate the call to a very small geographical location becomes commonplace. Although phones are now predominatly worn on the body instead of bolted to the car, the overlapping or remote jurisdiction issue remains a problem. And now, the CHP has ten years experience dealing with cellular 9-1-1 callers and quickly routing the call to the proper agency or providing assistance as appropriate. You think this is fun? Wait for Iridium. News Flash: Microsoft acquires Electrolux, makes extensive design revisions. Finally releases a product that doesn't suck. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:36:57 -0500 In article , Andrew Green wrote: > Monty Solomon quotes MICHAEL A. HILTZIK, Los > Angeles Times Staff Writer >> There could hardly have been a worse time for Marcia Spielholz's >> cellular phone to fail her. >> For 10 terrifying minutes she played cat-and-mouse with a black >> sedan along National Boulevard and up Castle Heights Avenue, one hand >> on the wheel, the other frantically tapping 911 onto the keypad of her >> cellular phone. >> Another try, another sickening busy. Finally her time ran out. > Oh, stop. While I am certainly sympathetic to Ms. Spielholz, there are > some factors here that don't seem to add up. > First, the article states she was receiving rapid busy signals. It's > unclear to me whether this refers to an all-circuits-are-busy signal > from the CO or an out-of-range signal from the phone itself; I own two > different cellphones, a car-mounted and an analog portable, and have > heard both such warnings from both phones occasionally under various > circumstances over the years. > If it was an all-circuits-are-busy for 9-1-1, I cannot imagine, even in > her understandable panic, that over the course of ten minutes worth of > dialing and driving, she didn't try calling someone -- anyone -- other > than 9-1-1. The Operator comes to mind. Please remember that not everyone who uses mobile phones has the knowlege we have of how they work. People who have been used to using mobile phones for a while (i.e. older cellular, IMTS and MTS) would probably call the operator first, since 911 hasn't been working that long on mobile phone systems. However, recent mobile phone users will probably go for 911 first. Also, someone in a critical situation may not have the presence of mind to call more than one number, or may not be able to dial, at all. Dialing "0" doesn't always do the trick, though. Here in the New York area, you can't even get the mobile operator when you travel north of I287 on the non-wireline side. A non-wireline customer traveling, say on NYS Thruway north of Suffern, may be completely on his own unless he knows how to reconfigure his phone for the alternative carrier in the area. > I have called in numerous emergencies over the years, and always > done it by calling the Operator and requesting "(town name here) > Police Emergency." My call is always transferred promptly. Even if I > don't know my exact location and possibly get connected to the wrong > town's Police Department, at least I've reached someone. I got to try that out a few days ago, after I had been in a car accident in northern New Jersey. The other driver was driving impaired, and I needed to get the police there a.s.a.p. "911" didn't work through AT&T Wireless for one reason or another, so I called the operator. Even though I reached the wrong PD (a town or two over), a cop was on the scene in about a minute. If I can, I'll try 911 first, but I really have little confidence that it's going to work. The cellular systems in the New York area have matured quite a bit over the years, and they do a lot of things today that they couldn't when they first started, but if I have another situation where I need assistance and "911" doesn't work, I won't use it again in ANY market. The same thing goes for horrible Ericsson digital subscriber equipment, if TDMA distortion prevents an emergency call from going through. > And if the "rapid busy" was in fact an out-of-range signal, then the > phone was out of range, period. The number being dialed would be > irrelevant. If Ms. Spielholz had configured her phone to switch to the > alternate carrier or roam, either manually or automatically, perhaps she > would then have been able to reach someone. That's an absolutely nonsensical assumption, Andrew. If the woman can't dial "0," how the hell would you expect her to navigate configuration menus to change her system preferences? Most people who know about that particular feature would normally have their preference set to NOT choose the alternative carrier (to avoid horrendous roaming charges), and probably would NOT have the patience to change it if they were in a similar situation. ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 00:21:56 GMT Organization: By area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On 20 Nov 1997 02:58:47 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom hancock4@bbs.cpcn. com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: >> Instead, many wireless companies favor their own customers by >> deliberately blocking 911 calls made on their own signals by callers >> using competitors' phones, by out-of-towners, or by users of phones >> that have never been activated by a commercial service (so-called >> non-initialized phones). > Is the above really true? Sounds pretty far fetched to me. Yes, it *is* true. And as you've stated, "unregistered" phones and cell-site coverage problems are only part of the story. It is not uncommon to see a carrier block calls from customers of the competitor in the area or from roamers from the "other side" [an A-side carrier blocking B-side roamers, or vice-versa] (this is part of what caused the Ocoee, Tennessee Olympic cellular mess, discussed in the Digest at length last year); from roamers whose home carriers don't have agreements with the serving carrier; or from roamers in high-fraud areas. Normally, 911 is not blocked in these cases, although *sometimes* it is. In such a case, where the phone has an otherwise valid account, blocking of 911 calls is absolutely absurd. I've even seen strange cases of where phones *temporarily turned off for nonpayment* could not call anything, including 911 (all calls went to the carrier's customer-service office), while unregistered phones and "unroamable" phones [no agreeement/competitor/etc.] COULD. Simply changing the MIN in the phone to a fake number fixed the 911 problem. Are calls to 911 blocked from payphones, do payphones require 35 :( cents, or do payphones require a valid calling card for 911 calls? Of course not. I don't see any difference at all. The main problem doesn't seem to be revenue, as some carriers claim -- a large part of the problem, especially with blocking competitors and roamers, is the usual politics of cellular roaming. The same carriers who are known as being "roaming problems" tend to be the very ones that block 911 from certain roamers, or customers of the competition! The cellular industry needs to stop feuding, and come up with a total solution to the current roaming mess -- that solution must include a provision to handle 911 calls for all callers, regardless of home carrier -- or lack thereof. Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ what's up with payphones?.......see http://cocot.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here!....help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:37:17 PST From: Eric Florack Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) deposed and said for the record: >> One technical study she commissioned for a lawsuit that she filed >> against L.A. Cellular, her service provider, indicates that the >> company's signal is still too weak to carry a 911 call in the area of >> National and Castle Heights -- > Oh, I see, a lawsuit. Of course! Isn't that what everything is driven and decided by any more? > While I'm certainly sorry for what happened, is it really the cellular > carrier's fault? The fault was the thieves -- they were the ones who > shot the woman. Quite. But then again, the criminal doesn't have milllions to snatch by means of judicial fiat. > Cellular phones do not always work. In my short experience with them, > I've been cut off in mid conversation and have had lots of trouble > getting a call through. It's a radio, and radios have dead spots. > Is the telephone company ever liable if a call fails to go through in > an emergency? Suppose someone can't get a dial tone for whatever > reason and time is lost securing an ambulance or fire. > Suppose the woman stopped at a conventional pay phone, found it > broken, and then was assaulted. Would the phone company be then > liable? Morally? No, of course not. But then, law is less than perfect, and is alas, becoming increasingly immoral. > >> Instead, many wireless companies favor their own customers by >> deliberately blocking 911 calls made on their own signals by callers >> using competitors' phones, by out-of-towners, or by users of phones >> that have never been activated by a commercial service (so-called >> non-initialized phones). > Is the above really true? Sounds pretty far fetched to me. Yes, it does. But it does paint a nasty picture of the evil corporate empire ... exactly the image the legal beagles want you to conjure up. Helps their payoff. /E ------------------------------ From: samiller@BIX.com (Scott A. Miller) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: 21 Nov 1997 21:15:18 GMT Organization: Galahad On 20 Nov 1997 02:58:47 GMT Lisa Hancock of Net Access BBS wrote this: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out: > While I'm certainly sorry for what happened, is it really the cellular > carrier's fault? I think the original poster's point was that if L. A. Cellular marketed their cellular service in such a way as to create the perception in the mind of the subscriber that their service offered security through dependable 911 access, when in fact it did not, then L. A. Cellular shares culpability and liability in this case. I agree with that premise. There may, in fact, be allegations in the lawsuit that do not stand up under close examination, but these IMO do not affect the central premise stated above. Scott A. Miller samiller@bix.com samiller@bellatlantic.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:41:27 -0500 From: David W. Levenson Organization: Westmark, Inc. Subject: Mis-Programmed COCOTs COCOTs (and LEC-owned smart payphones) which block access to 911 or 800 service are operating contrary to regulations. This may be caused by a failure of the equipment, or it may be caused by intentional mis-administration by the owner. As to Pat's statement about 'no way to lose money' I beg to differ. The key to payphone profitability, like any other retail business, is LOCATION. While the phones Pat describes would probably be profitable with almost any pricing scheme; they are in an unusually good location. A typical payphone, particularly under the recently-ended regulated rates imposed by most states, would break even or lose money if it handled only local calls. (The regulated rates were based on subsidies paid by other telephone company subscribers. These subsidies are not available to COCOT owners, and are often paid by those users!) Under the current de-regulation, it will probably be possible to make a reasonable return on investment with local calls...but it still depends upon the traffic mix. It also depends upon how much the LECs charge the COCOT owners for access and usage services. On our payphone route, 25% of the traffic is 800/888. (Most of this is pre-paid debit card calling.) At marginally-profitable or break- even locations, the dial-around compensation makes the difference between keeping the phone in service and moving it. Previously, the only way to make any money at all at these locations was by imposing a surcharge on 0+ calls (which, on our route, make up about 2% of the traffic) and on sent-paid long distance (about 10%). (Our own response to this situation is that we don't operate phones in such locations.) One of our payphones shows over 90% 800 traffic. We would have pulled that one out of service a couple of months ago but for dial-around compensation. At this point, the telco-owned payphones and the COCOTs are faced with similar costs and no subsidies. I would expect the prices (and the location-commissions) to become more equal over the next few years. The unprofitable locations will probably have no public phone service at all. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. Voice: 908 647 0900 Web: http://www.westmark.com Stirling, NJ, USA Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: COCOTs Misprogrammed Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:09:22 -0500 In article , David Perrussel wrote: >>> That reminds me -- I was using a pay phone last night (at a >>> high school in a somewhat rural area). I can't recall the carrier, I >>> am vaguely thinking Universal Telecom or something similar. Anyway, I >>> was trying to call home (we have an 888 number for such situations), >>> and it rejected it. I first thought perhaps my dad had restricted the >>> calling area, so I tried 1-800-CALL-ATT to use the calling card >>> instead. Same thing. It simply didn't like toll-free calls. I've >>> never seen this before, has anyone else? >> I have, more than once. There's a shopping mall in Bethpage, New >> York, suburb of New York City, that not only won't allow 800 calls, >> but also won't call 911 without a cash deposit. Same thing happened >> while using a pay phone in Chandler, Arizona. Couldn't use a 10XXX >> code, and couldn't reach AT&T via a toll-free number. Happened again >> with one of the few pay phones in Oradell, New Jersey (which is not >> rural at all). Couldn't use a 10XXX code and 800 calls were blocked. >> It's a common practice, even if illegal in some states. > From the sounds of things in both of these posts - I think the COCOTS > are either misprogrammed or they "forgot" their programming. No, David, those COCOT's were intentionally set up to do what they did. The teleslime operator in Arizona told me (literally) that it was tough, and they could basically do what they wanted in that state. The property owner in the NYC suburb didn't care whether customers liked it or not. Same thing with the COCOT operators in Oradell, NJ. I think that with the virtual explosion of portable phones in the marketplace, and the PCS companies starting up to increase competition in that area, we'll see a lot more COCOT abuses with fewer complaints (fewer people using them who would be inclined to file complaints with state regulatory agencies). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #323 ******************************