Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ns-mx!iowasp!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: kaufman@neon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Message-ID: <5196@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 15 Mar 90 17:30:31 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 15
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 175, Message 4 of 9

In article <5127@accuvax.nwu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 8 of 10

 .	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).  

Because there is less possibility of fraud.  It's not real likely that
the kid down the block can charge his TV usage to my electric bill.


Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu)