mem@sii.UUCP (Mark Mallett) (05/03/85)
Howdy
Recently, I received an AT&T bill that had the following sort of
entries in it:
No. -Date- -Time- --Number-- Code -Min- -Amount-
10. Mar 12 1159PM 617 xxx-xxxx ND 1 .18
11. Mar 13 1200AM 617 yyy-yyyy NDM
CONVERSATION MINUTES 1443 253.10
12. Mar 13 1210AM 616 zzz-zzzz ND 6 .70
Notice that #11, which occured between 12:00 and 12:10 on the same
day, lasted for 1443 minutes, which is about 1440 minutes (24 hours)
longer than the actual time spent (I'm glad i had an extra call
at 12:10, otherwise i couldn't prove it!). I wonder whether some
statistics-gathering program is reading more than one changable
register (i.e., date and time) without ensuring that the values are
consistent. I thought that somebody out there might find this
amusing, maybe even relevant.
mmdan@petrus.UUCP (05/10/85)
> Howdy > > Recently, I received an AT&T bill that had the following sort of > entries in it: > > No. -Date- -Time- --Number-- Code -Min- -Amount- > 10. Mar 12 1159PM 617 xxx-xxxx ND 1 .18 > 11. Mar 13 1200AM 617 yyy-yyyy NDM > CONVERSATION MINUTES 1443 253.10 > 12. Mar 13 1210AM 616 zzz-zzzz ND 6 .70 > > Notice that #11, which occured between 12:00 and 12:10 on the same > day, lasted for 1443 minutes, which is about 1440 minutes (24 hours) > longer than the actual time spent (I'm glad i had an extra call > at 12:10, otherwise i couldn't prove it!). I wonder whether some > statistics-gathering program is reading more than one changable > register (i.e., date and time) without ensuring that the values are > consistent. I thought that somebody out there might find this > amusing, maybe even relevant. > > mm This is not a bug. We are doing research in the area of "income enhancement". The theory is that some customers will pay an overcharge rather than dispute it. The object of this experiment was an empirical derivation of the functional relationship between magnitude of overcharge and probability of payment without complaint. Thanks for the feedback. We originally thought that netnews readers would be less likely to notice large telephone bills. I guess we were wrong. P.S. Are you over 25? Did you attend a private school? Do you make over $30,000 a year? Do you beat your wife? What is your social security number?
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (05/11/85)
In article <342@petrus.UUCP>, dan@petrus.UUCP writes: > > Howdy > > > > Recently, I received an AT&T bill that had the following sort of > > entries in it: > > > > No. -Date- -Time- --Number-- Code -Min- -Amount- > > 10. Mar 12 1159PM 617 xxx-xxxx ND 1 .18 > > 11. Mar 13 1200AM 617 yyy-yyyy NDM > > CONVERSATION MINUTES 1443 253.10 > > 12. Mar 13 1210AM 616 zzz-zzzz ND 6 .70 > > > > This is not a bug. We are doing research in the area of > "income enhancement". The theory is that some customers will pay > an overcharge rather than dispute it. The object of this experiment > was an empirical derivation of the functional relationship between > magnitude of overcharge and probability of payment without complaint. > > Thanks for the feedback. We originally thought that netnews readers > would be less likely to notice large telephone bills. I guess we > were wrong. Nawwww it can't be. You aren't serious. (are you?) -- - Sean Casey - - UUCP: {hasmed,cbosgd}!ukma!sean or ucbvax!anlams!ukma!sean - ARPA: ukma!sean<@ANL-MCS> or sean%ukma.uucp@anl-mcs.arpa - - "We're all bozos on this bus."
stv@qantel.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) (05/16/85)
In article <386@sii.UUCP> mem@sii.UUCP (Mark Mallett) writes: >Recently, I received an AT&T bill that had the following sort of >entries in it: > >No. -Date- -Time- --Number-- Code -Min- -Amount- > 10. Mar 12 1159PM 617 xxx-xxxx ND 1 .18 > 11. Mar 13 1200AM 617 yyy-yyyy NDM > CONVERSATION MINUTES 1443 253.10 > 12. Mar 13 1210AM 616 zzz-zzzz ND 6 .70 > If you have Three-Way-Calling, you could have put the 24-hour call on hold while you made the 6-minute call, then gone back to complete the first call. It used to be, on old telephone central offices, that the number-of-minutes counter only went up to 999, and if you called more than 999 minutes, the counter would recycle to 0. Thus, if you made a 1002 minute call, you would only be charged for 3 minutes. -- Steve Vance {dual,hplabs,intelca,nsc,proper}!qantel!stv dual!qantel!stv@berkeley Qantel Corporation, Hayward, CA
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (05/18/85)
> If you have Three-Way-Calling, you could have put the 24-hour call on > hold while you made the 6-minute call, then gone back to complete the > first call. If you had call fowarding on to a long distance number, it could have the same effect as well.