Xref: utzoo news.admin:1790 comp.mail.uucp:1130
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rick
From: rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: UUNET access opinions gathered
Message-ID: <44267@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>
Date: 17 Mar 88 06:28:32 GMT
References: <3046@fluke.COM> <3138@fluke.COM>
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA
Lines: 30
Keywords: UUNET reliability accessibility
Summary: minor clarifcation on billing

> the only thing that I'm not happy about is the fact that the bills don't
> include any sort of detailed breakdown about what the charges cover.
> they should (at the very least) say what the billing period is, but they
> doesn't do even do that.

It is correct that the bills do not come in detail (i.e. per call).
This is a deficiency that will be corrected "in the future". The raw
data exists, but it must be (painfully...) turned into something
a normal human can understand. Upon request (e.g. billing disputes) I
can and have produced the call detail. It is not automated right now.

I don't understand the second part. The current bill says:

INVOICE ... For UUNET service for Month, Year for Site SITE.

Yes the billing is slightly screwed up. This months project is to
totally reconcile the checks received with the invoices sent and
see exactly where we stand. This involves going through about 22 inches
of paper one by one. It hasn't help that the Berkeley Post office
LOST the entire January billing (i.e. we gave them a mailbag full
of letters and none of the 250 showed up at the destination within
a month). We remailed them a few days ago.

Lastly, I think Tymnet has finally gotten the 56kbps handling an
aggregate throughput of over 20 kbps. Its hard to tell, as I can't
tell when its working, I can only tell when its broken. (Right now
I can't find anyting wrong with it, but we are only doing 15-20
simultaneous X.25 connections. The real test is 25-35.)

---rick