Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!telecom-request From: csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: MCI Suspends New 900 Applications Message-ID: Date: 10 May 91 14:34:59 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 34 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 353, Message 11 of 12 John Higdon writes: > Since Telesphere provided no ANI nor any accounting detail whatsoever, > the providers had to take Telesphere's word for it.... > Sprint and AT&T provide ANI data to the provider so that if there is > collection difficulty, the provider can take matters into his own > hands. Also, he can keep track of who calls and how much and make sure > that no individual caller runs up a major bill that would be unpaid > due to claimed hardship. For this reason, neither Sprint nor AT&T will > likely have the problems that MCI or Telesphere claim. Now, follow me closely on this. As an Information Provider (IP), my system can record the time it began processing a call and the time it finished processing a call. Using simple mathematical analysis, I can run a report which shows the duration of each call. I can then cross-reference these records to the detail billing at the end of each month, if necessary. In any case, I know how long the system was in use, therefore I know how much money the carrier owes me, less holdbacks, no matter what ANI info I have. Basically, John's saying that if they want to screw the IPs, they will. I already figured that! :( (I'd still like to know exactly why MCI in particular made this move.) John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling