Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Steve Forrette Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Message-ID: <5248@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 16 Mar 90 11:07:03 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 23 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 178, Message 7 of 14 In article <5127@accuvax.nwu.edu> Roy Smith writes: >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? It's different because with an electric or gas bill, billing problems can be resolved easily by looking at the meter (it's even CPE :-) ). If there's a reading or billing error, you have the ultimate proof that you are right. I would imagine that these are quite accurate. On the other hand, I'm sure we've all had billing problems of one sort or another with "the phone company." By its very nature it's more prone to error. Where would you be if you didn't get detailed billing?