Asking the following just as a matter of fact checking:
If I call an 800 (or 888?) number from a coin-operated payphone (e.g., in an airport concourse), does the owner or operator of that 800 number get charged 30 cents for each time I call (and they answer)?
More specifically, does this apply to *all and every* 800 number owner? Or do some 800 number owners negotiate special (that is, much cheaper) deals?
And do some 800 number owners -- scumbag types, maybe -- just not pay these charges? And if so, do they perhaps get away with not paying?
(There's obviously a viewpoint hidden behind these questions -- but for the minute I'm just seeking to get the "true facts" of the matter.)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe the subscriber to the 800 number charges no one anything; _he_ is the person who agreed with telco to automatically accept all incoming calls on a collect basis. (Except for the sleaze 800 operators; they will claim _they_ are merely paying for the carriage to them; _you_ are paying for whatever 'service' they render on the phone, i.e. sex talk, horoscope, whatever. [Their rationale is if a sore has an 800 line to place orders, you call to place an order; do you expect the merchandise you receive at a later time to be 'free' since the store agreed to pay for the carriage of the original phone call? The only difference they say, is that the merchandise or service was delivered on the spot, rather than at a later time _as a reaction to_ your phone call.])Another party to the transaction, the COCOT owner has to pay _nothing_ for dialing to and connecting with the 800 number. He gets the call for 'free' since the 800 subscriber noted above has agreed to pay for it. The COCOT owner's complaint however, is he wants someone to pay him for the occupation of his instrument which becomes necessary since telco (alias AT&T) no longer includes payphones in the Separations and Settlements plan. Just as hotel switchboard operators get paid for their guarantee of payment of telco's charge for service, my feeling is that lacking some internal process for doing so, COCOT owner should get paid for his guarentee of payment to telco.
Bear in mind that a hotel/rooming house guest is entitled to _universal phone service_, but it would be very difficult administra- tively for telco to meet that goal with _transient persons_. Telco cannot go string wires and install an instrument for everyone who demands it, and what about the payment afterward? So telco, as a long established practice has had a deal with hotels, rooming houses, motels, hospitals [a hospital is merely a 'motel' or 'hotel' for an ill person is it not], college dormitories [merely a transient lodging place for a studious person, is it not]: To the management of such a place, "here are your wire pairs, here is the apparatus to use, _you_ situate it as needed, provide 'universal service' to these transient persons, you guarentee the payment of the charges involved; in return you get a commission or percentage of the revenue for your troubles.'
Now everyone goes away happy: telco meets its burden of universal service, (with a payment to its 'helpers'), telco does not have to worry about getting paid by the end user (presumably switchboard operator has more trustworthy credit than the transient user, etc. Switchboard operator resells a valuable service to its users it could not afford to pay for or install on its own, i.e wire pairs, central office switch, etc. And no one would stay in a hotel with no phone there to use would they? So it enhances the value of _your_ primary business as well, all for the cost of paying the monthly bill to telco, processing (reselling) the telephone calls, and diddling with some paperwork. For your labor, telco pays _you_. Everyone goes away happy. And whether or not the end user actally pays, or winds up stiffing the in-between reseller does not matter to telco, the in-between organization has _guarenteed_ the payment. So the in-between organization makes a very diligent effort to collect from the end transient user, something telco was trying to avoid in meeting its burden of universal service.
With COCOTS, it should ideally be the same way: transient user demands universal service (walks up to payphone, makes his call.)COCOT operator collects for his service at rates which should be regulated, at the end of the month, collects from the coin box, and remits proceeds to telco less his 'commission', i.e. whatever is left over in the box after paying telco. COCOT owner has a few burdens which do not generally apply to other resellers (hotels, etc). His _extremely_ transient users are more likely to try and stiff him than the others. So he collects in advance, and telco helps by flagging his line as 'coin service' to prevent third party underfeeders (sleazy 800 numbers for example) from abusing him, but otherwise the principle is the same. It all went away when telco divested; the worker-hive called 'Separations and Settlements' (a huge number of employees who sat in a back-office, pushing scraps of paper worth two or three cents each back and forth at each other, busy with their adding machines, and filing cabinets, etc) -- a _terribly boring_ job if there ever was one -- a lot like credit card processing offices) was one of the first to vanish. Greed took over, everyone from telco downward wanted a bit more. PAT]