Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: More On MCI Mail Rate Increase Message-ID: <14334@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 4 Nov 90 19:36:10 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest 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 790, Message 10 of 13 ccplumb@spurge.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) writes: > Wouldn't billg@microsoft.uucp or convention>@apple.com work just as well? > (P.S. mail to billg@microsoft, at least, hits a mail filter first, > which passes the Turing test. I believe it's traditionally called a > "secretary.") In my experience in dealing with both companies, I would expect that you would get through to John Scully long before you would ever expect to reach Bill Gates. Any company (Microsoft) that would subject customers to a 900 number to reach technical support is way down on the food chain, IMHO. I wrote a letter to Microsoft telling them what I thought of a particular product (and them for having a 900 number) and six weeks later received a phone call from someone who, in essence, told me that all the problems were causes by (in order), my hardware, my other software, my incompetence. This person left a call back number and an email "name" to facilitate a return call. When I called back, I was informed that they were aware of no such person. Microsoft is a company that could probably have all of its phones disconnected and not suffer a reduction in communication capabiltiy. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert)