Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Message-ID: <5127@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 13 Mar 90 16:47:42 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Lines: 29 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 8 of 10 In <5087@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jim Shankland writes: > the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed > that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no > itemization of calls. You pretty much had to take their word for it that > you'd consumed that many message units; none of this, "But sir/ma'am, I > never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff. And how is that any different from the typical electric, water, or natural gas bill? In a typical house, each of these items is metered and once a month you get a bill saying "according to our meter, you used XXX kWH of electricity, and you own us $YYY". What would the electric company say if I called them up and said "But sir/ma'am, I didn't even run my air conditioner this month, how could I possibly have used that much?" Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized bills from other utilities but not from the phone company? It's certainly not because of the amount of money involved. The average person's average phone bill is probably a lot higher than their water bill, about the same as their electric bill, and a lot lower than their gas bill (assuming they heat with gas). Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma"