NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/dcom/telecom/12704

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-27 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ulowell!news.bbn.com!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!telecom-request
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 16:09:15 MST
From: Steve Howard <breck1![e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Approved: [e-mail]
X-Submissions-To: [e-mail]
X-Administrivia-To: [e-mail]
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 921, Message 3 of 10
Lines: 70

> The most recent twist that I've personally experienced was a phone
> that after you dial 10-ATT-0-etc, comes back *bong* ITI Communications.
> So I guess it shouldn't have been a surprise that when I dialed
> 1-800-CALL-ATT that I heard "Press 1 to ..." (I forget the rest of the
> wording) and after entering the phone number again heard *bong* ITI
> Communications.  Both 0 and 00 were directed to ITI operators whot
> claimed they were unable to connect to either local NYTel or ATT
> operators.  Very thorough.

And very unfortunate.  Why don't you try to avoid using the businesses
who have these COCOTs on their premises (when possible)?  Or complain
to someone at the business and mention that you will be going to
his/her competitor in the future?  We take compaints like this *very*
seriously.

Don't bother complaining to the COCOT company, they aren't going to
listen to you.  They will listen very closely to the business owner
who can easily have the phone replaced!  Every COCOT company knows
that there are hundreds of other COCOTs that would love to be in his
location!

> [This from a different article] Actually, some of those payphones are doing
> those odd things less than for trying to make you use 'their' long distance
> company, then for trying to avoid fraud.

I don't think that this is a valid excuse.  We use COCOT payphones
exclusively.  We are not vulnerable to any of the techniques you
listed above (I hope :-).  With good programming, COCOTs are much
better than LEC payphones.  Our COCOTs offer services to guests that
LEC payphones can't touch.  Including:

1) $1.00 coin = 4 minutes anywhere in the continental US;

2) Rates equal to or lower than AT&T for credit card calls;

3) Transparent handling of propriety AT&T cards via outpulsing 10ATT0 +
   number + card number after the bong;

4) Voice mail for busy or no-answer numbers for $0.25 local or $1.75
   long-distance (Well, $1.75 is a bit steep).

5) Free calling to almost anywhere in our resort.  (Handy to check on
   that child at day-care or to check snow conditions).

6) Ability to make international calls with a credit card.  (This is
   *very* valauble -- Most IECs won't do this from a payphone unless you
   have their calling card -- very difficult if you are just visiting
   the US).

My point is that COCOTs are not all bad, just most of them. :-( When
properly programmed they are *great*!!

Greed motivates more than fraud potential.  Each of those potential
sources of fraud are easily prevented.

COCOTs wouldn't be here if people didn't use them.  The vast majority
of our population doesn't realize that they have different options and
choices when using payphones.  I don't think that most people know
whether a call is cheap or expensive ... they just pay the bill and
don't ask any questions.  If people were shown how they have been
"ripped off" and were better educated about COCOTs they might use them
more wisely (Dan Rather/Hugh Downs are you listening?).  A little bit
of customer education could easily force the COCOT industry to change!


Steve Howard  Breckenridge Ski Resort    [e-mail]
Disclaimer=The opinions above do not necessarily represent those of
my employer.