Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!chinet!patrick From: patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: PC Pursuit pricing amendment Message-ID: <7420@chinet.chi.il.us> Date: 10 Jan 89 07:33:12 GMT References: <8901050251.AA14569@nessus.telenet.com> <2384@isis.UUCP> <7400@chinet.chi.il.us> <2385@isis.UUCP> Reply-To: patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix Lines: 220 In article <2385@isis.UUCP> aburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt) writes: >> = <7400@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson): motivated by pure greed, not to improve the service for those using it. >at 99.9% I'd feel it was fairly justified action, just not well presented. > >What inside information tells you it's 80%, by the way? It is not a matter of 'inside information'. Telenet has quoted that figure in a couple of their mailings and also on the Net Exchange at one time. >>How do >>you manage to control your telephone bills each month without looking at >>the clock from time to time? > >My phone bill is flat rate. I rather like it that way. If I had to look >at the clock all the time I would find using the phone far less pleasureable >than now and would use it far less often. Well, flat rate service is a thing of the past in Chicago (as of March,1987), and most other large communities. Again, it was a problem of abuse. When our local telco (Illinois Bell) first started unlimited calling packages back sometime in the 1930's, they never dreamed how fifty years later, the use of modems would tripe and quadruple the average 'umlimited' usage people had been putting on the system. >>...You did 'request the package >>sent to you' by logging on and entering your password, just like you request >>the services of the telephone company every time you lift the receiver and >>dial a number. > >I requested a service with ***unlimited*** calling. They don't offer that billing package any longer. The not-for-profit charitable services department of Telenet -- you know, the division created to comply with the consitutional right to use modems and BBS's for unlimited entertainment is no more. Now they run a business; and in a business-like way. >>With your attitude, I hope the first time you dispute the charges and >>refuse to pay the bill that they cut your account immediatly and put you >>in collection. > >Fine, that will probably cost them more in the long run. Not really. The cost of collection/attorney's fees are your responsibility. Check out your service agreement with Telenet. >If keeping an eye on expeditures, weighing alternatives, and choosing the >best deal is cheap, then I'm proud to be "cheap". Watching your expenditures, weighing alternatives and general being a smart shopper is not being 'cheap'. Some of the techniques you suggested for delaying legitimate payment are cheap. >I still consider $4.50/hr expensive. Perhaps you would too if you >woke up and thought about that being higher than minimum wage, for example. > >While I make better than minimum wage, how could you have known that >when you replied? How could you know, for example, that I'm not making >$15k a year? >Let's not forget, PCP is *entertainment* for many of us. I'm not using >it for business. Hence my comparison below to a movie. And to my phone >bill. But Telenet is not interested in the least in how much money you make in a year's time. Going to the theatre or out to dinner is also entertainment. Do you select a fancy restaurant then expect them to set their prices based on your ability and willingness to pay? Telenet is not operated with a 'sliding scale based on income' approach to revenue. Do you go to purchase a new computer or new car and suggest in those cases also that your income should be the concern of the auto dealer or the computer store? >Maybe if more people watched their expenses we wouldn't have the massive >consumer debt problem we do in this country. If this is "cheap", I'm >all for it. I quite agree with you. I rarely use credit cards for just this reason. You cannot eat more than you produce. That should be elemetary, yet people get more deeply entangled with their credit cards every day. >I prefer to have my options open, not closed. Flat rates are open. Whenever >you have to weigh each call as being necessary or not (as in LD and now PCP) >then options are being closed. Fun is certainly being lost. And PCP was >never more than fun in this house. I agree it was a lot more fun when the time was open-ended, Apparently quite a few people felt this way -- too many where Telenet and many local telcos are concerned. Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: PC Pursuit pricing amendment Summary: Expires: References: <8901050251.AA14569@nessus.telenet.com> <2384@isis.UUCP> <7400@chinet.chi.il.us> <2385@isis.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix Keywords: In article <2385@isis.UUCP> aburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt) writes: >> = <7400@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson): >> >>What difference does it make? Elections are won by 51.1% of the voters acting >>in unison as well as 99.9%? About a year ago, Telenet did an analysis of >>their traffic on PCP, and found about 80% of the users were on an hour per >>day or less. > >It matters because at 50.1%, 49.9% of the people will be getting higher >bills; knowing that, I would feel even more strongly that was an action >motivated by pure greed, not to improve the service for those using it. >at 99.9% I'd feel it was fairly justified action, just not well presented. > >What inside information tells you it's 80%, by the way? It is not a matter of 'inside information'. Telenet has quoted that figure in a couple of their mailings and also on the Net Exchange at one time. >>How do >>you manage to control your telephone bills each month without looking at >>the clock from time to time? > >My phone bill is flat rate. I rather like it that way. If I had to look >at the clock all the time I would find using the phone far less pleasureable >than now and would use it far less often. Well, flat rate service is a thing of the past in Chicago (as of March,1987), and most other large communities. Again, it was a problem of abuse. When our local telco (Illinois Bell) first started unlimited calling packages back sometime in the 1930's, they never dreamed how fifty years later, the use of modems would tripe and quadruple the average 'umlimited' usage people had been putting on the system. >>...You did 'request the package >>sent to you' by logging on and entering your password, just like you request >>the services of the telephone company every time you lift the receiver and >>dial a number. > >I requested a service with ***unlimited*** calling. They don't offer that billing package any longer. The not-for-profit charitable services department of Telenet -- you know, the division created to comply with the consitutional right to use modems and BBS's for unlimited entertainment is no more. Now they run a business; and in a business-like way. >>With your attitude, I hope the first time you dispute the charges and >>refuse to pay the bill that they cut your account immediatly and put you >>in collection. > >Fine, that will probably cost them more in the long run. Not really. The cost of collection/attorney's fees are your responsibility. Check out your service agreement with Telenet. >If keeping an eye on expeditures, weighing alternatives, and choosing the >best deal is cheap, then I'm proud to be "cheap". Watching your expenditures, weighing alternatives and general being a smart shopper is not being 'cheap'. Some of the techniques you suggested for delaying legitimate payment are cheap. >I still consider $4.50/hr expensive. Perhaps you would too if you >woke up and thought about that being higher than minimum wage, for example. > >While I make better than minimum wage, how could you have known that >when you replied? How could you know, for example, that I'm not making >$15k a year? > >If "cheap" means I'm cautious about spending money, and that I manage to >invest some each year so that I'll have some money when I retire, yeah, >I'm cheap! > >Let's not forget, PCP is *entertainment* for many of us. I'm not using >it for business. Hence my comparison below to a movie. And to my phone >bill. But Telenet is not interested in the least in how much money you make in a year's time. Going to the theatre or out to dinner is also entertainment. Do you select a fancy restaurant then expect them to set their prices based on your ability and willingness to pay? Telenet is not operated with a 'sliding scale based on income' approach to revenue. Do you go to purchase a new computer or new car and suggest in those cases also that your income should be the concern of the auto dealer or the computer store? >Maybe if more people watched their expenses we wouldn't have the massive >consumer debt problem we do in this country. If this is "cheap", I'm >all for it. I quite agree with you. I rarely use credit cards for just this reason. You cannot eat more than you produce. That should be elemetary, yet people get more deeply entangled with their credit cards every day. >I prefer to have my options open, not closed. Flat rates are open. Whenever >you have to weigh each call as being necessary or not (as in LD and now PCP) >then options are being closed. Fun is certainly being lost. And PCP was >never more than fun in this house. I agree it was a lot more fun when the time was open-ended, Apparently quite a few people felt this way -- too many where Telenet and many local telcos are concerned. Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: PC Pursuit pricing amendment Summary: Expires: References: <8901050251.AA14569@nessus.telenet.com> <2384@isis.UUCP> <7400@chinet.chi.il.us> <2385@isis.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix Keywords: -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / US Mail: 60690-1570 (personal zip code) FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956