Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!world!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill?
Message-ID: <13224@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 9 Oct 90 20:17:32 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.
Lines: 22
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 726, Message 7 of 12


In article <13164@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Henry Mensch <henry@garp.mit.edu>
writes:

> I get two bills for my home phones.  It seems pointless (I mail the
> payments in the same envelope, etc).  It seems reasonable to ask NET
> to bill them together.  Any reasons why I shouldn't do this?  Any
> reason why they wouldn't do this?

I have the same problem with the same LEC. My lines are in a hunt
group even, but they have different classes of service. It is the
class of service difference, they say, that makes them be billed
seperately. One line in METRO (actually CIRCLE which includes METRO),
and the other in CONTIG.

If your lines are in the same exchange, they should be on the same
billing cycle. N.B. that some Cambridge lines out of the same CO (Ware
St., not Bent St.) can't be billed together and can't hunt to the
other exchange.

The problem here is some are stuck on the old # 1 ESS, and others are
on the # 5 ESS.