National Access on AC Family plan

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:28:55 -0700, "Scott Stephenson"
<scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> chose to add this to the great equation
of life, the universe, and everything:

>"Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote in message
>news:1080267898.133140@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
>> This I would be very very surprised at. The switch knows
>> who you are regardless of caller id blocking.
>
>I'd be just as surprised, but this, in combination to the inability to
>provide incoming call detail, makes a guy wonder- is it possible that all of
>the detail is not making its way into the billing software? True, the

It's not inability, it's refusal. A year ago, my bill showed who my
incoming calls came from. A couple months later, they stopped. When I
inquired about it, they gave me some BS about privacy. AFAIAA, the Chicago
market did not have a change in billing system then.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Statistics show that teen pregnancy drops off significantly after age 25."
- Mary Anne Tebedo, Republican state senator from Colorado Springs

 

"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
news:lote609iknb9otea5ahgdp0r1v18kvr2m6@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:28:55 -0700, "Scott Stephenson"
> <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> chose to add this to the great equation
> of life, the universe, and everything:
>
> >"Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote in message
> >news:1080267898.133140@sj-nntpcache-3...
> >
> >> This I would be very very surprised at. The switch knows
> >> who you are regardless of caller id blocking.
> >
> >I'd be just as surprised, but this, in combination to the inability to
> >provide incoming call detail, makes a guy wonder- is it possible that all
of
> >the detail is not making its way into the billing software? True, the
>
> It's not inability, it's refusal. A year ago, my bill showed who my
> incoming calls came from. A couple months later, they stopped. When I
> inquired about it, they gave me some BS about privacy. AFAIAA, the Chicago
> market did not have a change in billing system then.

Privacy/showing who incoming calls come from is one issue -- I feel you
pain.
Billing them as M2M or not is an independent issue.

-Quick

 

"CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote
> In article <1080353482.48914@sj-nntpcache-5>,
> Quick <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote:
> >I'm too lazy to read the feature details but I'm assuming that calling
and
> >called have to be "In Net". So your example would assume that Podunk
> >is a VZW extended network partner?
>
> A response from VZW "contact us" told me that both callers need *not*
> both be in VZW systems (or even extended network), but only the phone
> which was "In Net" would be billed per M2M. My example intended to
> suggest that "Podunk" was a small local company which did not have very
> sophisticated networking capability.

Yes, I understood that. They have to know the calling number (or at least
the
ESN if its not one of their's) and the called number. Those would be given
to VZW when billed and could be correlated then.

I wonder if they will change the ERI to match the new terminology.
Have it say something like "Verizon In Net"?

-Quick

 

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:46:55 -0800, "Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
>news:lote609iknb9otea5ahgdp0r1v18kvr2m6@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:28:55 -0700, "Scott Stephenson"
>> <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> chose to add this to the great equation
>> of life, the universe, and everything:
>>
>> >"Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1080267898.133140@sj-nntpcache-3...
>> >
>> >> This I would be very very surprised at. The switch knows
>> >> who you are regardless of caller id blocking.
>> >
>> >I'd be just as surprised, but this, in combination to the inability to
>> >provide incoming call detail, makes a guy wonder- is it possible that all of
>> >the detail is not making its way into the billing software? True, the
>>
>> It's not inability, it's refusal. A year ago, my bill showed who my
>> incoming calls came from. A couple months later, they stopped. When I
>> inquired about it, they gave me some BS about privacy. AFAIAA, the Chicago
>> market did not have a change in billing system then.
>
>Privacy/showing who incoming calls come from is one issue -- I feel you pain.
>Billing them as M2M or not is an independent issue.

I'm just saying that they can't use "inability to provide incoming detail"
as an excuse for not billing IN correctly.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Ah, sure, I know, but aren't they *all* witches inside?" - Bugs Bunny

 

"Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c3vfak$2a23a9$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> The MOU (Minutes Of Use) is a description of the effect, not an actual name.
> IE the Minutes you are online (whether prime or non-prime) are charged as
> Minutes of Use (one minute charged to your plan for one minute used)

And if the browser connection times out or is interrupted, it's
entirley possible to get billed for three minutes of use, within one
minute of actual time:-(
I guess that's just like making three phone calls within one minute.
However, re-connections are less noticable, when using the wireless
web.

-
David