Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Brad Isley Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Warning: Defective "Bell" Phone Being Sold Message-ID: <5373@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 19 Mar 90 12:58:26 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Prototype IS the Product..." Lines: 30 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 186, Message 1 of 9 In article <5144@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 171, Message 4 of 9 >It seems a bit sad, that the Bell name is now being put on inferior >merchandise, but that seems to be the case. This is no news to me. My wife works for Southern Bell. They had a "special" offer for employees several years back for som phones made by "Bell". She bought a cordless phone through this offer for a huge discount. Later we discovered why the discount was so large. The batteries would typically last about 10 minutes. Nice touch (brand new). At most any time, though it only happened when we were asleep, it would emit an ear-piercing squeal that would wake us up from the other side of the house. After tiring of this we called to try and get it fixed. We were informed that since we got it through the "special" we had no warranty and it would cost $90 to send it in for repair. That was about $30 less than the phone cost to start with. We tossed it at that point. In case you're interested, it was the "Freedom Phone" - I forget the specific manufacturer, but it was not AT&T or Southern Bell. No more "Bell" phones for us - we are QUITE pleased with all 4 of out AT&T phones. Brad Isley, yer local tools blacksmith. What, me worry ?