Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for "Criminals"? (was: Re: UCENET II and Pet

[dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)]

Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org> writes:

> > 	War on (some) Drugs...  they don't want to, they have been asked to...
> >
> > 	Most payphones can no longer receive calls because of this as
> > well, and there are far fewer of them around in certain areas than there
> > used to be ...
>
> More like simple economics; after the breakup, a lot of pay phones were
> operated by companies specializing in this type of service. Pay phones
> are high maintenance, and their operators can only turn a profit by
> charging very high rates; if you make a quick call and ask the other
> party to call you back at the pay phone, the pay phone operator doesn't
> make much money.

That's a very accurate analysis, and that's precisely what's been happening
in NYC, where a lot of pay phones are owned by small businesses now. They
also want to either block the 800 numbers, or charge for calling them
from their pay phone.

Of course they'd feel differently if there was some way to pay for receiving
calls there... :-)

> Can you site any legislation barring pay phones from receiving calls? I'd
> think that most pay phone operators would be glad to deny incomming calls
> if they were allowed to (as they often are), and wouldn't need to be forced.

This is a comp.telcom question, but to the best of my knowledge, no, and
it has little to do with the war on (some) drugs.

---

<a href="mailto:dlv@bwalk.dm.com">Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps