That's a rather odd way of looking at the situation, don't you think? Are you saying it is unusual for a person to call other family members when someone gets sick? Are you saying it is unusual to call your employer when you will be delayed reporting to work?
In most other retail services your attitude would grounds for government action. Oh, my ground meat has 75% filler in it? Well, you should've known about it, shouldn't you? Oh, my gasoline is 80 octaine? Well, you should've known about it, shouldn't you?
In other retail services the price is on the item or the shelf. Yet in pay phones the price is nowhere to be found. Sorry, but I don't buy your argument that the consumer should already know.
How many people just pay the bill? How many people give up after being stonewalled? (I was stonewalled at first but kept persisting, demanding to speak to higher levels of management.)
Two very different things. For one thing, the far higher Mike's Brand price would show up immediately at the cash register, where a consumer could refuse it right then and there. Oh, let's keep our order of magnitude correct here -- Mike's would be $25.00 / pound.
It was indeed a _right_, codified by national policy by rates set by the FCC and local PUCs. Rate averaging and universal service. Some payphones were very costly, some were very profitable, but all payphones in an area charged the exact same rate by law, inter-state calls all paid the same rate. Further, rates were available in advance from an easily reached operator always on duty.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think Seth was making the unwarranted assumption that everyone is as sophisticated on telecom topics as he is. Despite all the years I have talked telecom, sadly most folks are only (at best) slightly more knowlegeable about telephony than they were pre-divestiture. PAT]