3000.00 PHONE BILL, ADVICE!!! - UP TO 5000.00
Kimberly Shaffer
Okay guys -
For all you guys that have been eagerly watching the fate of my poor
doomed mother, here is an update.....
(no, not asking for money you OTHER cynics out there who shall remain
sort of nameless....)
She spoke to US WEST this morning. They were pretty much hardline and
cold. They informed her that actually she owes 5000.00 - because of an
additional 2000.00 accumulated in February. She asked what I thought was
a pretty innocent question - which is to say, "If you saw such
incongruous activity on my bill, once it passed the first thousand, on a
bill that averaged about 20.00 a month AT THE MOST over a course of two
years, why didn't you send a warning note?"
They apparently skimmed right over that remark, again reprimanding her
and telling her they would have to "hold some sort of court". She gave
them Scott Shadder's name from AT&T - apparently he does something
important in Georgia - and was told "they would get back with her
shortly".
That was at 9:00 a.m. this morning and it is now 3:37 p.m. No word.
I will keep you all posted.
Her question that she asked me was - she uses PTI for local service and
AT&T for interstate long distance service. If both of those are not
related to US West, how will this affect her service as it stands? Does
anyone know?
kimberly
Peter
kimberly,
i believe that basic local phone service cannot be suspended for non
payment of a long distance bill. like i said, i'm not positive of this,
but i'm fairly certain i remember this from somewhere. you should talk
to your local phoneco and ask them this.
peter
David Lesher
roamer1@-removeme-pobox.com (S.C.) writes:
>On 21 Feb 1998 10:38:25 GMT, psal...@landau.ucdavis.edu (Peter)
>wrote:
>>i believe that basic local phone service cannot be suspended for non
>>payment of a long distance bill. like i said, i'm not positive of this,
>If the charges were for other than 900 numbers (i.e., regular toll/LD
>calls) or charges resulting from a slam (billing by different LD
>carrier than customer was PICed to), they may disconnect.
Not in all states. I have the MTSS for Ohio in front of me,
for example. They forbid same.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Justa Lurker
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:56:06 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom.tech,
roamer1@-removeme-pobox.com (S.C.) wrote:
| >Her question that she asked me was - she uses PTI for local service and
| >AT&T for interstate long distance service. If both of those are not
| >related to US West, how will this affect her service as it stands? Does
|
| ("intraLATA toll") portion?
|
| 7/10d dialing for toll calls should not be allowed for this very
| reason.
From the tone of the original post, it sounded like the poster's
mom who programmed her computer to make the calls made a serious
mistake. Mom was asked to pick a number for access to the network,
and mom picked a number within the state, thinking that if it were
in state, it would be local.
Then she spent a nearly unbelievable time online (6hr a day average).
Now she wants telco or her ISP to eat the bill that was run up due
to a customer mistake.
There has yet to be an explaination of HOW the customer got the
number, was it one on a list or did the ISP suggest it as local?
Again based on the original message, it appears that the ISP did
not tell the customer that it was local. It was just on a list
that the customer chose from.
Thanks to the modern dialing scripts on computers, it is easy to put
in a long distance number and have the dialer correctly parse it.
Mom probably had no idea how many digits it was dialing, 7/10/11/18.
She put in a number and it worked, until the bill came.
I support 'toll indicating' by forcing 1 at the beginning of every
long distance call, but I doubt if it would have prevented this case.
JL
Derek Balling
S.C. wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 05:25:51 GMT, wb8...@netcom.com (David Lesher)
> wrote:
>
> >>carrier than customer was PICed to), they may disconnect.
> >
> >Not in all states. I have the MTSS for Ohio in front of me,
> >for example. They forbid same.
>
> disconnects, some don't.
Just like Pennsylvania. You need an act of god to disconnect a user for
non-payment in Pennsylvania.
The running joke when I worked for a LEC[1] was that in Pennsylvania,
the collections
department would call, and say something like "You'd better pay your
outstanding balance or we'll send out the notice with the bold red
border!"
There are stories, which I never took the time to confirm, of people who
got service, haven't paid a dime on it since, and still have it years
later, not paying any bills. They just keep sinking into debt $10 per
month (they get stripped down to like NO usable service... no long
distance, no call waiting, no nothing).
I don't understand how a PUC can say that's "FAIR" in any sense of the
term.
[1] GTE for those who care
Kimberly Shaffer
Well, if anyone gets tired of me posting on this same old sorry subject,
please let me know, but I think that some of you may be interested in
knowing what is going on. I sure am learning a lot, I can tell you that
much.
Right now - here is the information. Her local provider is PTI, which
provides a lot of RURAL users access. Their address is www.ptinet.com,
and interestingly enough, they are a subsidiary of Pacificorp, which is
getting ready to de-regulate. On the bill, they seem to be billed from US
West, which is her intralatta (sp?) carrier. Her interstate long
distance is from ATT and her ISP number that she called is ATT Worldnet
in the same state, different town. Local long distance whatever you want
to call it. The number was not manually put in, rather chosen from a
list of numbers that ATT encloses in their software.
There was a local ISP (PTINET) which provides local ISP for 19.95 month.
I and she fully realize that she made a bad mistake. But when you guys
talk about EATING a bill? C'mon, with all the research I have been
doing, I, novice that I am, realize that long distance phone calls made
to the same number within the same area code, different prefix, DO NOT
COST the company that provides the service 5000.00 for one month's
service. Please. There is no EATING here, this is a problem. And I
would like to know WHY someone did not cut off her access after it hit a
danger point mid to early month.
I have been given the right to discuss her account and what I find very
interesting is the fact that no-one wishes to discuss this with me at the
phone company. Yesterday I was on the phone with 4 different people
thoughout a 45 minute time period. No-one wanting to talk to me about
this. I was finally given a number to their fraud and investigative
division in Gig Harbor, but I fully intend to go in and speak with them
with as much information as I can muster. Right now, I am preparing to
lodge a formal complaint perhaps with the intent of finding out if they
have ever cut anyone off in the middle of the month for making long
distance calls before they reached that high of an amount, and what their
policy is towards customers. I was given that info from another poster
on this board.
Will let you all know what happens. Thinking about putting it on my
website, if I can scan it in.
Justa Lurker
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:55:20 -0800, in comp.dcom.telecom.tech,
pcb...@gte.net (Kimberly Shaffer) wrote:
| Well, if anyone gets tired of me posting on this same old sorry subject,
| please let me know, but I think that some of you may be interested in
| knowing what is going on. I sure am learning a lot, I can tell you that
| much.
thread ... those that are interested can help.
| Right now - here is the information. Her local provider is PTI, which
| provides a lot of RURAL users access. Their address is www.ptinet.com,
| and interestingly enough, they are a subsidiary of Pacificorp, which is
| getting ready to de-regulate. On the bill, they seem to be billed from US
| West, which is her intralatta (sp?) carrier. Her interstate long
| distance is from ATT and her ISP number that she called is ATT Worldnet
| in the same state, different town. Local long distance whatever you want
| to call it. The number was not manually put in, rather chosen from a
| list of numbers that ATT encloses in their software.
So far you have not mentioned where the ISP number was located. The
answers to the following questions will help build your arguement.
Were there any truly local numbers on the ISP's list? Was the number
chosen from the list the closest number on the list to your Mom? Was
it a town close enough to Forks that a reasonable person would assume
that it was a local call? How many miles between towns? Is there a
list of local cities in the front of your mom's phone book? Is the
phone book list easy to read? Is it up to date?
1) IF there were no local numbers on the list AND the ISP sold the
service as a local call --> Go after the ISP for being misleading.
2) IF there was a local number on the list, but it was not obvious
to the user (for example - no city names associated with numbers
or misleading city names) --> Go after the ISP.
3) IF the number chosen was in a nearby town (less than 20 miles)
then a customer may reasonably assume that it is local. (They
could be wrong, and SHOULD check first - but it is reasonable.)
4) IF the phone book does not include local calling information, or
if that information is out of date or hard to read, (local phone
info is not being provided) --> Go after the local phone company.
| There was a local ISP (PTINET) which provides local ISP for 19.95 month.
The same ISP that mom uses?
Another thing to look at is where the charges are on the bill. If
these are 'local long distance' charges it means that the call was
placed within her LATA. LATAs can be as small as one town or as
large as most of a state, and can cross state lines. There should
be LATA information in the front of the phone book in the long
distance dialing section --- if not, go after the local phone company.
| I and she fully realize that she made a bad mistake. But when you guys
| talk about EATING a bill? C'mon, with all the research I have been
| doing, I, novice that I am, realize that long distance phone calls made
| to the same number within the same area code, different prefix, DO NOT
| COST the company that provides the service 5000.00 for one month's
| service. Please. There is no EATING here, this is a problem. And I
| would like to know WHY someone did not cut off her access after it hit a
| danger point mid to early month.
The price of an item has no relation to it's cost. Have you ever
purchased VCR connection cables for $6.95 at a department store?
Did you know that the store could their supplier 95 cents for the
same cables they are marking up 600%? Huge markups exist in all
areas of business.
When you sign up for telephone service, or purchase anything, you
agree to pay the PRICE, not the COST. If the company reduces their
PRICE to make you happy, they are 'eating' the profit margin.
I'm not saying that their profit margins are set properly, you can
take that up with the CPUC. But the prices are set.
The cutoff:
When I started my home phone service (GTE, not California) I was
told that there was a $500 credit limit. Once my bill reached
$500 they would cut me off to prevent fraud. Sounds like a service
you could use.
| I have been given the right to discuss her account and what I find very
| interesting is the fact that no-one wishes to discuss this with me at the
| phone company. Yesterday I was on the phone with 4 different people
| thoughout a 45 minute time period. No-one wanting to talk to me about
| this. I was finally given a number to their fraud and investigative
| division in Gig Harbor, but I fully intend to go in and speak with them
| with as much information as I can muster. Right now, I am preparing to
| lodge a formal complaint perhaps with the intent of finding out if they
| have ever cut anyone off in the middle of the month for making long
| distance calls before they reached that high of an amount, and what their
| policy is towards customers. I was given that info from another poster
| on this board.
Standard customer service? Actually finding out if the telephone
company has a cutoff point or is willing to put one on mom's phone
as part of a settlement for her charges would be helpful. But
please do remember that as you said in the first post, this was a
mistake that your mom made. Find a way that the ISP or telco
contributed to that mistake and your results will be better.
Kimberly Shaffer
> So far you have not mentioned where the ISP number was located. The
> answers to the following questions will help build your arguement.
> Were there any truly local numbers on the ISP's list?
There were no local numbers with ATT WorldNet, which was her service
provider.
> chosen from the list the closest number on the list to your Mom? Was
> it a town close enough to Forks that a reasonable person would assume
> that it was a local call?
No, actually, it was far away. Ferndale, which is several hours
away. This is the sad part, the kids picked it out for her, ages 10 and
11 respectively.
> list of local cities in the front of your mom's phone book? Is the
> phone book list easy to read? Is it up to date?
The ISP software was on the computer - the "Online Services" list sold
with every Win95 OS.
> 1) IF there were no local numbers on the list AND the ISP sold the
> service as a local call --> Go after the ISP for being misleading.
> 2) IF there was a local number on the list, but it was not obvious
> to the user (for example - no city names associated with numbers
> or misleading city names) --> Go after the ISP.
> 3) IF the number chosen was in a nearby town (less than 20 miles)
> then a customer may reasonably assume that it is local. (They
> could be wrong, and SHOULD check first - but it is reasonable.)
> 4) IF the phone book does not include local calling information, or
> if that information is out of date or hard to read, (local phone
> info is not being provided) --> Go after the local phone company.
>
> | There was a local ISP (PTINET) which provides local ISP for 19.95 month.
> The same ISP that mom uses?
Not the same ISP, but had she known, she would have chosen the local one
of course. That is a silly question. It's not as though she CHOSE a
long distance provider because she LIKES to pay huge bills or was even
talking to someone - as a matter of fact, the server whose number she was
calling was a dedicated ISP for ATT WorldNet. Whom I spoke to by the way
today and they said that in this case of course they would not charge the
client - that anyone could see it was a mistake and the customer should
be charged the normal rate for ISP service for that area.
> Another thing to look at is where the charges are on the bill. If
> these are 'local long distance' charges it means that the call was
> placed within her LATA. LATAs can be as small as one town or as
> large as most of a state, and can cross state lines. There should
> be LATA information in the front of the phone book in the long
> distance dialing section --- if not, go after the local phone company.
This is where I get confused still yet. It does say this and I am typing
this exactly how it appears on the bill:
TOTAL BILLED PTI COMMUNICATIONS 22.71
TOTAL BILLED US WEST 2874.21
TOTAL BILLED MCI 3.22
TOTAL BILLED TELECOM USA 3.18
TOTAL BILLED OPERATOR SERV PROVIDERS 17.57
Total Current Month Charges 2920.89
Total Amount Due 3000.47
(there was a previous bill from last month)
So who does she owe the money too? PTI or US West? I say US WEST - and
those are the people I am trying to contact......
kimberly
Justa Lurker
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:53:20 -0800, in comp.dcom.telecom.tech,
pcb...@gte.net (Kimberly Shaffer) wrote in response to my questions:
| There were no local numbers with ATT WorldNet, which was her service
| provider.
| No, actually, it was far away. Ferndale, which is several hours
| away. This is the sad part, the kids picked it out for her, ages 10 and
| 11 respectively.
| The ISP software was on the computer - the "Online Services" list sold
| with every Win95 OS.
| > | There was a local ISP (PTINET) which provides local ISP for 19.95 month.
| > The same ISP that mom uses?
| Not the same ISP, but had she known, she would have chosen the local one
| of course. That is a silly question. It's not as though she CHOSE a
| long distance provider because she LIKES to pay huge bills or was even
| talking to someone - as a matter of fact, the server whose number she was
| calling was a dedicated ISP for ATT WorldNet. Whom I spoke to by the way
| today and they said that in this case of course they would not charge the
| client - that anyone could see it was a mistake and the customer should
| be charged the normal rate for ISP service for that area.
I hate to sound mean again, but she did choose a long distance
provider, by suggestion of the Win95 software pre-installed on
her machine she chose ATT WorldNet - picked a number that was
hours away (does she know where Ferndale is?) without regard to
the phone charges. It is nice to see ATT WorldNet writing of
their charges for their service, since the presence of their
software on the computer started this expensive chain reaction,
a good example of company goodwill.
I am not saying that she chose the provider because she wanted
a $3000 bill. Assigning intent to actions is dangerous. But
she did not take care in the selection of the number, which
was obviously long distance. Anything you get from US WEST
will be a gift, or goodwill writeoff.
| TOTAL BILLED US WEST 2874.21
| So who does she owe the money too? PTI or US West? I say US WEST - and
| those are the people I am trying to contact......
I assume that PTI is the local company to which the bill payment
is normally sent. They would need to know that you are disputing
the long distance portion of the bill that is being charged by
US WEST. They may suspend collection on that amount, the way
that they can suspend collection on any disputed amount. The
phone service would not be disconnected until the dispute is
settled.
Then it will be between you and US WEST. If they can do a goodwill
writeoff, possibly in conjuntion with a monthly limit being added
to her account to prevent future problems, you will be fortunate.
JL
Kimberly Shaffer
Well-
I have searched the net all over and I simply cannot find ANYTHING to
this extent anywhere. I have spoken to ATT and GTE and they both
explained to me that it was their policy in cases such as these to waive
the fees and charge simply what it would cost to provide the service
locally. I work for a utility company. Every year, a utility company
has to show what their profits and losses are. Don't even begin to tell
me they don't know how much they charge per call because their whole
tariff and rate department keeps that information. I don't mean to be
argumentative, but they DO know how much it costs.
And mentioning what it costs them to provide the service is a bad
argument.
They would say that YOU don't know what it costs them. Hey, THEY don't
know
either.
A better argument, if you wish to go this way, is to plead gigantic
ignorance.
If your mother is willing to look like an ignorant and uninformed person
while
the other side is deliberating about what to do, that is the cheapest
way.
I am doing that right now, but somehow, it doesn't seem to make a
difference.
>would like to know WHY someone did not cut off her access after it hit a
>danger point mid to early month.
This is your second argument. That the phone company
ought to have cut it off after it reached a certain point.
I would not buy that. If you were running
the phone company, how would you decide on what patterns indicate a
danger
point?
Right now, the argument is something called a "high billing toll" where
the phone company sets your average bill at a rate usually twice the
amount (at the most three times the amount) of the average bill you have
used over the last 12 months. When you first establish service most
companies ask the amount of long distance calls you will make and they
can determine your deposit from that. If you exceed this "high billing
toll" the company usually makes an effort to call twice before they
disconnect your service - but they will disconnect long distance service.
They cannot disconnect local toll service without writing you and then
they stil have to wait 8 days from notification, but they will disc long
distance service.
Sure, the credit card companies sometimes call you to check that you
were the one making all those purchases that hit a pattern they thought
suspicious. But the phone company does not operate that way. How they
do
operate is that when someone gets a ridiculous phone bill (kid calls
900/976
numbers and racks up a bill, say) they do a one-time clemency thing and
remove it. Let's say you were in this latter case: 900/976 numbers. You
call
them up and say, "Oh my God, I didn't know my son was making all these
calls.
I did not authorize him about this. Oh, what am I going to do?" Then
you
wait for them to be magnanimous and offer to remove it this time. Same
thing
here, I guess. But if you start with what it cost them to provide the
service
and why they don't have a policy of cutting it off after some point, they
are not inclined to be cooperative with you and just wait for you to back
off
and pay quietly. I wouldn't want that for you, either.
I have no problem about being nice and agreeable to US West, but I also
intend on filing an informal complaint with the WUTC, and if necessary, a
formal complaint using the argument of unfair and deceptive trade
practices. Basically, they extended my mother 5000.00 worth of credit on
the phone and I believe that in any other case, they woud have terminated
that account much sooner.
About eating the bill: If you and your mom (?) admit to a mistake, then
the
ball is in the other court. If they are not going to drop it, you can
take
other actions, like for example asking them if you can pay for it in
small
increments. This is better than getting a loan to pay it off now.
Obviously you are not aware of US West's policy to have overdue payments
paid off in 6 months or less.
This is not the first time that a single, small mistake has cost
a lot of money. One can find stories like this all over the net.
Really? Show me another story about this somewhere, website, usenet,
because I have hunted up and down and certainly can't find anything of
this magnitude. Oh yeah, a couple of hundred...... but 5000.00 in one
month? As a matter of fact, I would settle for 2000.00. Show me a story
where a telecom charged 2000.00 for long distance charges for what was
obviously a user mistake using the wrong number for an internet provider.
The thing to think about is how you are going to handle this. There
is a correct way and there is the wrong way. Making them be defensive is
the wrong way, in my never-to-be-humbled opinion.
I am not making them defensive. Any normal person is going to see that
this amount is incredibly high and something needs to be adjusted, even
those in the credit area. And no offense again, but I have a friend who
works for US West in Network Operations and if anyone would know how much
it costs to provide service, he does. And you know what? He says it is
DEFINITELY not 5000.00.
Derek Balling
Kimberly Shaffer wrote:
> Really? Show me another story about this somewhere, website, usenet,
> because I have hunted up and down and certainly can't find anything of
> this magnitude. Oh yeah, a couple of hundred...... but 5000.00 in one
> month? As a matter of fact, I would settle for 2000.00. Show me a story
> where a telecom charged 2000.00 for long distance charges for what was
> obviously a user mistake using the wrong number for an internet provider.
True Story (not from the net, but it will be when DejaNews archives
this)
LEC begins "measured service" in Midwest state. LEC prints "sample
rates" on final six bills of flat-rate service so that businesses will
have 6 months to figure out what they need to budget for metered service
after switch. (e.g. if the switch was going to happen July 1, Your
January through June bills charge you flat-rate service, but warn "it
WOULD have cost you this much under the measured service plan we're
implementing July 1st, so get ready".
Telemarketing firm opens up shop on [ in this example ] June 25th or so.
Apparently completely ignores the warning from the rep about measured
service.
Telemarketing firm gets first month's bill. $600 for the monthly phone
service (not unreasonable, 10 lines), and $47,000 in local usage
charges.
Accountant: "We would NEVER have set up shop in <city>
had we known about this billing!".
Rep: "Do you plan to close up shop completely
and buy a new building somewhere else?"
<thinking if its one-time, I *MIGHT*
be able to do something>
Accountant: "No, we've signed a 3-year lease."
Rep: "So what are you going to do about this next
month?"
Accountant: "I don't know, probably call in again."
Rep: <knowing that if THAT'S the case, we're not
going to prolong this misery>
"Then you're going to need to realize that
each month you're going to have a monthly
bill of around $50,000 and plan accordingly.
I can understand this one may have come as
a bit of a shock and make a note that you'll
pay it up to 45 days past the due date, but
in the future -"
Accountant (interrupting): "We're not going to pay that much
for local phone service, we just can't do it.
I'm sorry"
Rep: "I'm sorry, too. Unfortunately you have very
little choice short of closing your business,
moving out of the state [which would have been
hard for them since they're a local only firm,
would have meant costlier LD charges to reach
their target clients] or having your phone
disconnected for non-payment".
The Ranting and raving which followed is left as an exercise of
the imagination for the reader. Suffice it to say the accountant
was very pissed, questioned the lineage AND the parentage of the
rep in no uncertain terms, and vowed never to pay the account, but
only after making a severe enemy of the billing rep in question.
The billing rep, having made it his mission in life now to ensure
that the tariff was upheld watched the account carefully, saw that
it never got paid, sent the overdue notices himself (instead of
waiting for whenever the automated process got it) and personally
requested permission from the disconnection department to issue
the blessed command "ISS TDO" [ISSue Temporary Disconnect Order]
to suspend the customer's business.
Derek
Former LEC Billing Dept Rep.
Ross Schacher
Kim - I see where you're understandably upset, but from what I've seen
on this thread, you just don't have any legal grounds to contest the
charges. I am the telecom manager for a large call center, and I get
the dubious joy of approving the (and trying to fight the
questionable) bills every month, so I know what it's like to deal with
them.
Your mom signed up for the account, used it (for how many hours?!) for
the month, and just simply made a mistake from ignorance.
If you go to the telco blustering, as another poster said, you won't
get anywhere. If you try to approach it from the case of "Look, she
made a bad mistake, we were unaware of the charges that would accrue,
and you won't see this again, but it represents a financial hardship
to pay this right now; what can you do for her?", you'll probably see
some compassion from the Telco, since they DO want to retain business
and keep making money from your mom.
As for toll fraud monitoring... From what I understand, these were all
instate calls. I strongly doubt that US West is set up to watch for
toll fraud on instate calls. The vast majority of fraudulent calls are
directed overseas (mideast & caribbean are the popular targets), and
that is what most systems look for: international calls that break
with the established pattern of calls for any given account. AT&T,
MCI, & Sprint have these systems in place, but they cost a lot, so I
doubt it has even occurred to US West to be looking at local calls.
Question: for these marathon sessions, was your mother actively
engaged in surfing the net at all times, or were there long periods of
inactivity? The reason that I ask this is that most ISP's will
disconnect connections that are not active. If your ISP was supposed
to do this and didn't, you can always point out to the telco that she
was counting on that & she'll be more careful in the future.
Good Luck & keep us posted on what happens! (and remember, keep your
cool when talking to the telco!!)
Ross Schacher, Telecom Mgr | __ BMW __ | o Past Master
National Leisure Group | \R65/ | /^\ 1992-3, 1996-7
Woburn, MA 617-587-6001 | __|||__ | \/ G \/ Franklin Lodge
ro...@nlg.com (work) | (__| |__) | / \./ \ AF & AM
squ...@compuserve.com(home)| |_| | ^ Grafton, MA
606 - the area code of the Beast.
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:16:28 -0800, pcb...@gte.net (Kimberly Shaffer)
wrote:
>First off - this was a business, not a residential account. Familiar as
>I am with the utility business, residence and business accounts are each
>handled in a completely different manner. As you should know. A
>business account, especially one that deals with phones and switching
>would certainly have been scrutinzed and had to put in a deposit and
>passed a credit screening. I am very VERY surprised that they did not
>receive a mid-month bill for high usage, but then again, they are a
>business.
>
>Again, I would very much like to see a case where a residential client
>called a number by mistake, was billed over 3000.00 within a month's
>period without being notified by the local phone company and paid that
>amount.
>
>Any takers?
Derek Balling
Kimberly Shaffer wrote:
>
> First off - this was a business, not a residential account. Familiar as
> I am with the utility business, residence and business accounts are each
> handled in a completely different manner.
Yeah, businesses are given FAR more "leniency" than residences, because
there's statistically less chance of it being "abused". :) Not
speculation, just fact. The "rep-allowable limits" for credits on
business accounts versus residential were WAY higher. (e.g. the rep
could write-off a VERY significant amount for a business and almost
nothing for a residence) Had the situation I mentioned been a
RESIDENCE, it would have been even more painful for the customer
probably (although I was a business specialist I did have a bunch of
friends "across the room" on residential customers working a call center
the size of a football field)
> As you should know. A
> business account, especially one that deals with phones and switching
> would certainly have been scrutinzed and had to put in a deposit and
> passed a credit screening.
"Credit Screening" would have been a matter of (A) in a sole
proprietorship, doing a TRW on the owner, requesting a deposit of up to
the tariffed limit (in most states, a couple hundred dollars, nothing
near the bill in question), or (B) in the case of
partnerships/corporations, a simple records check to see if they owed
the LEC money, and if not, voila, phone service, have a nice day we'll
be there on Tuesday to do the install.
> I am very VERY surprised that they did not
> receive a mid-month bill for high usage, but then again, they are a
> business.
Don't be. I can't actually think of a LEC that *DOES* do "mid-month"
billing like that. It would have to play havoc with the billing and
collections routines.
Derek
Moe & Melissa
Even if the ISP has a inactivity timeout period, if your mother
had her email program up and checking for mail at some short interval
less than 15 minutes each, this would keep the ISP's connection alive
until she manually logged off.
Moe Kunkle
Tom Watson
In article
<CA061F79CEE7B696.9250BF78...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Derek Balling <dbal...@speedchoice.com> wrote:
<<<deletia on flat rate Vs. measured service>>>
>
> Telemarketing firm gets first month's bill. $600 for the monthly phone
> service (not unreasonable, 10 lines), and $47,000 in local usage
> charges.
>
<<<deletia regarding how service was cut off, deserveably so!>>>
I question the numbers a bit here...
$47,000 in "local calls", let's see...
at $.05 each that makes 940,000 minutes of calling, assuming they last
only 1 minute.
With 10 lines, that makes 94,000 minutes PER LINE
Now there are 1440 minutes in a day, so that is 65+ days of dialing on a
trunk for the entire day.
Geeze what were they doing?? Junk faxes that lasted only .5 minutes for
the entire time the trunks were connected?? Something doesn't sound right
here??
But then again, just about anything is possible with evil telemarketers!!
--
t...@cagent.com (Home: t...@johana.com)
Please forward spam to: anna...@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do.