Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site intelca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!intelca!cem
From: cem@intelca.UUCP (Chuck McManis)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.flame
Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of AT&T Calling Cards
Message-ID: <277@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-May-84 13:16:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: intelca.277
Posted: Tue May 29 13:16:21 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 08:24:22 EDT
References: <3004@brl-tgr.ARPA> <893@ihuxi.UUCP>
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 26


Just a couple of rebuttals and points to make here :

1.) When I was going to school at USC in L.A. Pacific Telephone would
send you a bill mid-month if it got over $100. The bill would come
with a note saying if you wanted to pay half now and the rest at the
end of the month. It didn't seem to tough for them, but maybe they 
have better equipment. 

2.) As for the following comment :

>... Anyway,
>why do you care? AT&T has never required anyone to pay for long
>distance calls they didn't make - AT&T eats the loss. ...

Does this mean we don't need to worry about defense spending because 
the Government pays for it ? ATT does not "eat" the loss, they raise
long distance rates. I for one would rather they fixed the problem.

As always these opinins are mine and do not represent an attitude 
or opinion of my employer, fellow workers, or the pot of petunias
on the bookshelf.

			--Chuck