Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: 11 Apr 91 19:38:32 GMT From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers Message-ID: Organization: St. Peter's College, US Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 286, Message 6 of 10 Lines: 31 In article , scott@hsvaic.boeing.com (Scott Hinckley) writes: > That seems like a pretty expensive way to deal with it (operator's > time + envelope handler's time + envelope cost + check cost + stamp > cost + amount of check.) Here in NJ Bell land, they would send you a check as well. I recall it some standard form, not a "real" check, but the banks would process them. Maybe they use them on _their_ phone bill? Anyway, it was explained to me that the phone company did things this way because the had no way of knowing if you _really_ just lost a dime in the phone or if you were just trying for a free call. They said that the refund check actually cost them far _less_ than giving away free phone calls to anybody who said they lost money, since it tended to discourage such fraud. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, US terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 [Moderator's Note: Ah, for the good old days when you could lose a nickle in the payphone (usually because the operator accidentally collected it when she meant to return it) and she would apologize and say 'on your next call, tell the operator you have five cents credit coming from Operator 207 (or whoever).' PAT]