Date: Fri, 15 May 92 16:41:38 CST
From: moderators <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu>
Subject: File 3--COCOTS and the Salvation Army (Follow-up)

In Cu Digest 4.20, we related the problems of a COCOT (Coin-operated,
Customer-owned Telephone) installed at the Salvation Army Freedom
Center in Chicago. In brief, The SAFC, a community release center for
recently-released state and federal prisoners, had installed COCOTS
that were charging prisoners, who generally come from low-income
populations, significantly higher rates than conventional carriers.
The COCOTS utilize long distance carriers that are demonstrably not in
compliance with federal law (PL 101-435).  In the next issue, we will
provide a follow-up to the lack of responsiveness of the carriers
(U.S. Long Distance) and the billing agents (Zeroplus Dialing and
GTE).  This note summarizes the response of the Salvation Army, which
was the only organization that took the problem seriously and acted
upon it.

When we summarized events in 4.20, we had been unable to obtain
consistent information from the telecos because of multiple layers of
billing accountability and significant contradictions in information
that we were given.  We were also, at that time, unable to reach
anybody at the SAFC who could provide us with information. So, we
expressed our frustration by raising questions that we would have
asked SAFC officials. Since then, we have talked with several SAFC
personnel, and without exception they were deeply concerned about the
problem.  They had received numerous complaints from ex-offender
customers about the technical service of the COCOTS, but they were not
aware of the long distance tolls until we brought it to their
attention.  They emphasized that it was neither their intent nor their
practice to profit from telephone services. The information they
provided supports their community reputation as a viable and dedicated
organization committed to helping ex-offenders return to the
community. In response to our questions, we were told the following:

The SAFC *does not* itself own the COCOTS, and the COCOTS there are
fairly new.  The Salvation Army recently signed a contract with a
company that promised to deliver services identical to the previous
system, Illinois Bell, at no extra cost to the users. The SAFC signed
a contract when told they would receive a better commission with equal
service and no increased rates. Some sources indicated that the COCOT
phones did not, in fact, provide better service, and there was some
concern expressed by ex-offenders and others that the COCOT was, in
fact, *more expensive* for users than the previous carrier. Our own
experience suggested that, for long distance rates at least, this
complaint has substance.

The SAFC center does receive a monetary return from COCOT use. The
return is accumulated for the residents' benefit fund. This fund is
used to replace equipment, provide amenities (such as tv sets),
defray costs for special events such as the annual Christas part, and
provide modest resources for indigent prisoners in emergencies. The
profits from the COCOT are ultimately returned directly to the
prisoners, and the SAFC itself does not profit.

SAFC personell emphasized that there are still alternative (RBOC)
telephones available, and at least one telephone is available at no
charge for important calls such as obtaining job interviews.

Because the SAFC is bound by contract to their current COCOT owner,
they are not sure of their options for the long run. Over the short
run, however, they indicated that they will address the problem in two
ways. First, they will discuss the problems with the owner and attempt
to assure that the terms of the contract--equal service at no higher
costs--are met. Second, they will emphasize "consumer literacy" and
assure that their clients are aware of the differences in especially
long distance rates between the various long distance service
providers and explain that users are legally entitled to place calls
to alternative carriers if the one to which they initially connect is
not to their liking.  We have sent them a copy of PL 101-435 to assist
them in their discussions with the COCOT owner and to provide their
consumers with adequate information.

We commend the SAFC for its handling of the situation.  Salvation Army
officials were concerned that our previous post would communicate
erroneous information about the nature of the SAFC and its operation.
Both they, and others, affirmed that the SAFC is a successful,
exceptionally beneficial, and highly reputable program with only one
end in mind: To help ex-offenders.  If our previous remarks were
excessively strident, we apologize.  They have displayed both honor
and initiative in protecting prisoners from exploitation, and we thank
them for their concern. It is unfortunate that GTE, USLD, and Zeroplus
cannot follow their example.

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253