Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
From: LENOIL@DEEP-THOUGHT.MIT.EDU (Robert Lenoil)
Newsgroups: mod.telecom
Subject: Re: Billing of 10XXX calls
Message-ID: <8601290520.AA13160@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 28-Jan-86 16:07:40 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8601290520.AA13160
Posted: Tue Jan 28 16:07:40 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Jan-86 02:11:30 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 22
Approved: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu

Before my ALLNET dial 1 service started, I used 10444, as well as occassionally
dialing up their switch if I wasn't at home.  The 10444 calls appeared on my
New England Tel bill, the ones direct to the switch were billed directly by
ALLNET.  My bills didn't start coming directly from ALLNET until my 1+ took
effect, and I was told that even though my direct-to-switch and 10444 calls
together totalled above $25, I could not receive a volume discount, since they
were billed entirely separately.

The only 10xxx number that I've received bills direct from the carrier is MCI;
whether it costs the carrier more to do this or not I do not know.

(Humorous anecdote: ALLNET apparently contracted with New England Tel to handle
its 10444 billing; the number on the ALLNET portion of the New England Tel bill
to call about billing problems is New England Tel's own customer service
number.  I remember my first bill I had a billing problem, and gave the folks
at customer service a call; but they were unaware that they were doing Allnet's
billing, and gave me the standard "call the carrier" pitch.  After some
pleading, the attendant put me on hold and found out that, yes, I had come to
the right place.  She did not, however, know how to make the appropriate
adjustments, and called me back the next day, after having learned how to use
the new system.)
-------