dkpurks@nessus.UUCP (System Administrator) (01/05/89)
ADDITIONAL ANNOUNCEMENTS and ANSWERs to COMMON QUESTIONS
REGARDING PC PURSUIT PRICE CHANGE ANNOUNCEMENT.
To ALL PC Pursuit customers:
There has been an overwhelming response to the recent price
change announcement/letter (see related bulletin). So much so
that my personally responding to EACH in a timely manner is an
impossibility. However, we are reading all the mail. This
bulletin contains some related new announcements, as well as
answers to common concerns.
First, the following announcements:
1. WE HAVE DECIDED TO WAIVE THE LIMITATION OF ONE ACCOUNT PER
PERSON. There is now NO LIMIT to the number of PC Pursuit
accounts that can be ordered/owned by a single person.
Thus, if you have determined that a 60 hour usage cap (or
90, or any multiple of 30 hours) is more appropriate for
your typical usage, you can order the appropriate number of
accounts.
2. In order to provide you with plenty of time to determine
what your requirements are, WE HAVE DECIDED NOT TO BILL YOU
FOR ANY OVER CAP USAGE UNTIL MAY 1, 1989. The fixed monthly
charge will still increase to $30 as of February 1, 1989.
However, you will not be billed for any non-prime time usage
over 30 hours until the month of May 1989. Please note that
the actual statement for May usage won't appear until mid
June.
3. When we begin billing for monthly usage over 30 hours
(beginning with May's usage), WE WILL SUBTRACT THE AVERAGE
TIME IT TAKES TO CONNECT (APPROXIMATELY 1 MINUTE) FROM EACH
CALL BEFORE ADDING UP THE TIME. Therefore, you will not be
charged for a call to a BUSY line (as long as you disconnect
the call immediately upon seeing the "BUSY" message). The
exact amount of time to be subtracted will be announced
within the next few weeks.
Addressing other common concerns:
1. Many people are suggesting that it is the 30 hour monthly
usage cap, not the fixed monthly increase to $30, which
concerns them the most. Because PC Pursuit must be
transformed to a profitable service to continue offering it,
the primary alternative left was to have a higher fixed
monthly price with a higher CAP (or a much higher fixed
price and no CAP). Raising the fixed monthly charge
penalizes those who use the service less than 30 hours a
month (which is statistically the vast majority). We do not
believe that the smaller volume user should subsidize the
more serious (higher volume) user. Thus, we have the 30
hour cap, which is appropriate for the new $30 fixed monthly
charge. To accommodate higher volume users, we have waived
the 1 account per user limitation (see above).
2. When over cap usage billing begins in May 1989, a detailed
statement will be mailed to you no less than 10 days prior
to your credit card (or checking) account being debited, if
your account is to be charged for more than just the fixed
monthly charge.
3. The announcement inadvertently states that all cities *now*
support all three baud rates. The target was to provide all
baud rates to all cities by the end of the year.
Unfortunately, some cities have had deployment delays.
Latest schedules target the end of January to complete
deployment.
4. Some customers were sent terms and conditions that (through
a typesetting error) do not include paragraph 7(d) -- which
is clearly missing since these copies show 7(c) followed by
7(e). Unfortunately, 7(d) states our policy of 30 days
notice for prices changes (or other changes). Some have
concluded that since their copy of the Ts & Cs do not
include this paragraph, that Telenet can not change the
pricing for them. I truly apologize to those who have an
erroneous copy. However, the law clearly (and
appropriately) provides for any business to be able to
change its pricing structure, and/or service offering in any
way with reasonable notice. The Ts & Cs simply clarify our
implementation of "reasonable notice". Lack of this
paragraph does not remove the basic business right to change
pricing (or other changes) with reasonable notice.
Everyone here at Telenet wants to work with our customers. The
announcements provided here are to accommodate the concerns of
many of you, and are a direct result of input received from you.
I urge each of you to take advantage of the next few months
(before MAY) to determine what your typical monthly usage
actually is. Our statistics clearly show that most of you should
not be effected by the 30 hour usage cap. If you find that your
usage is higher, you now have the option to order multiple
accounts (blocks of 30 hours per month) before over cap billing
begins in May.
Sincerely,
Peter Naleszkiewicz
Outdial Services Product Manager
--
Dave Purks
PC Pursuit Technical Coordinator
Telenet Communications Corp
..!uunet!telenet!dpurksaburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt) (01/07/89)
In article <8901050251.AA14569@nessus.telenet.com> dkpurks@nessus.UUCP writes: > ADDITIONAL ANNOUNCEMENTS and ANSWERs to COMMON QUESTIONS > REGARDING PC PURSUIT PRICE CHANGE ANNOUNCEMENT. > > 1. WE HAVE DECIDED TO WAIVE THE LIMITATION OF ONE ACCOUNT PER > PERSON. Say what? This sounds like a kludge if I ever heard one. I'd like to propose the following rate structure, instead: A. $1/hr for connect time, with a $30 minimum (that is, a $30 flat fee for the first 0-30 hours). B. $1 for each additional hour above 30 hours. > 1. Many people are suggesting that it is the 30 hour monthly > usage cap ... which concerns them the most. Yes, it is. Particularly since PCP was sold as a service with "unlimited" usage. Given that there are around 500 hours a month available for usage under the old rules, 30 is awfully small. If the cap is in place to discourage heavy usage, let's discuss what "heavy" usage is. (If this is really the issue then I would say that "heavy" would be using more than half the available time, or greater than 250 hours a month. If you want to place a cap at that level then the objections would die down from many people.) Thus, amend my proposal to read: A. $1/hr for connect time, with a $30 minimum (that is, a $30 flat fee for the first 0-250 hours). B. $1 for each additional hour above 250 hours. > ... Raising the fixed monthly charge > penalizes those who use the service less than 30 hours a > month (which is statistically the vast majority). I don't care for ambiguous terms like "vast majority". Is that 50.1% or 99.9%? > To accommodate higher volume users, we have waived > the 1 account per user limitation (see above). (Which is just $1/hr for extra hours so let's do it that way instead.) > 2. When over cap usage billing begins in May 1989, a detailed > statement will be mailed to you no less than 10 days prior > to your credit card (or checking) account being debited, if > your account is to be charged for more than just the fixed > monthly charge. Here I have a MAJOR objection. I really don't count the minutes I'm logged in, nor does it look like I'd be able to *accurately* count the minutes even if I wanted to (which I don't, but that's not important since I **can't**). I feel it is incumbent on Telenet to inform me, WHILE I'M LOGGED IN, that I am about to exceed my usage cap (be it 30 or 250 hours). A warning one hour, five minutes, and at the point of exceeding it would only be fair. Suppose we use the horrible 30 hour limit. Suppose *I* calculate that I'm at 29 hours. I use an hour of time, because I really don't intend to pay for any extra time. Then I get billed, way after the month is over, for an extra hour of time because my calculations were off by an hour. That ain't fair, boys. Since YOU'RE the ones who want the limit, it's YOUR duty to tell us when we're about to and are exceeding it. Just for your info, if the above scenario ever occurs, and every time it does occur, I intend to contest the charges. I consider this situation much like someone sending me a package I didn't request then billing my charge card for it. I would keep the gift and contest the charge. Now I'm sure you don't want to go about giving people free time, do you? (By the way, I do NOT consider $4.50 an hour cheap. At $30 a month PCP will cost more than my monthly local phone bill, and that's for two phone lines. I have NEVER considered long distance inexpensive. I would never pay $4.50 for extensive periods of time on the phone. Geez, I consider a movie in a theater expensive at $6/person, and that's about $3/hour. Let's keep things in perspective, here!) -- Andrew Burt ncar!isis!aburt "Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time."
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (01/07/89)
In article <2384@isis.UUCP> aburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt) writes: >> 1. Many people are suggesting that it is the 30 hour monthly >> usage cap ... which concerns them the most. > >Yes, it is. Particularly since PCP was sold as a service with "unlimited" >usage. Given that there are around 500 hours a month available for usage >under the old rules, 30 is awfully small. But the service which was sold last year and the year before are no longer available. The service you have been purchasing is being discontinued. Is Telenet required to make something available forever just because they made it available at one time? >> ... Raising the fixed monthly charge >> penalizes those who use the service less than 30 hours a >> month (which is statistically the vast majority). > >I don't care for ambiguous terms like "vast majority". Is that 50.1% or 99.9%? 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. >Here I have a MAJOR objection. I really don't count the minutes I'm >logged in, nor does it look like I'd be able to *accurately* count the >minutes even if I wanted to (which I don't, but that's not important >since I **can't**). If you do not want to count the minutes, or use some rudimentary method of controlling your use of the system, then that is your problem. How do you manage to control your telephone bills each month without looking at the clock from time to time? >I feel it is incumbent on Telenet to inform me, WHILE I'M LOGGED IN, that >I am about to exceed my usage cap (be it 30 or 250 hours). A warning >one hour, five minutes, and at the point of exceeding it would only be >fair. Telenet *DOES AND ALWAYS HAS* told you the length of time of your connection to a given place. Read the disconnect message when you disconnect from an outdial. On the right side is a string of figures indicating the number of days:hours:minutes:seconds the connection was up. Make a note of these in the same way you estimate during the month how much your telephone long distance bill is going to be. Unlike most telephone companies, which have a surcharge for operator advice on 'time and charges' on a per call basis, Telenet gives the information for free. Just *read* what they tell you when you disconnect. As for them cutting in with one hour, five minutes and overtime warnings while I am in the middle of a connection, that idea STINKS. Most of us know how to tell time and we might be in the middle of a down/upload. You want our download should be screwed up by Telenet sticking a line in about the time? >Suppose we use the horrible 30 hour limit. Suppose *I* calculate that >I'm at 29 hours. I use an hour of time, because I really don't intend >to pay for any extra time. Then I get billed, way after the month is over, >for an extra hour of time because my calculations were off by an hour. > >That ain't fair, boys. > >Since YOU'RE the ones who want the limit, it's YOUR duty to tell us when >we're about to and are exceeding it. This is really something. YOU miscalculate the time. YOU fail to read the time messages given after every connection. And it is Telenet's fault that you are billed. To expect them to cut in every few minutes and tell you the accumulated time used is ridiculous. The phone company operators will do it *if you pay extra for the call*. And do not twist things out of context by saying '...since you are the ones who want the limit, it is your duty to tell us...'. This is baloney. They do not 'want a thirty hour limit'. They are saying the new product they have for sale effective next month is a package allowing thirty hours of calling for thirty dollars per month. They do not want a limit on your usage. They want you to use as much as you like and *pay for it with a reasonable amount of money*. Do you use any other time sensitive services? Does AT&T tell you when you have used up your one hour of Reach Out time? Does your local cable company monitor your use of the system and make you specifically authorize a choice of programs before playing them, just in case you might have 'miscalculated how much time you had spent on the movie channel this month'? >Just for your info, if the above scenario ever occurs, and every time it >does occur, I intend to contest the charges. I consider this situation >much like someone sending me a package I didn't request then billing my >charge card for it. I would keep the gift and contest the charge. Now >I'm sure you don't want to go about giving people free time, do you? They are not doing anything of the sort. And they have said any questions about the charges each month will be answered in a DETAILED accounting which you will recieve. It will look a lot like your phone bill, with a list of connections and times listed one after another. 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. 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. >By the way, I do NOT consider $4.50 an hour cheap. No, but I consider you to be cheap. >At $30 a month >PCP will cost more than my monthly local phone bill, and that's for two >phone lines. I have NEVER considered long distance inexpensive. I >would never pay $4.50 for extensive periods of time on the phone. > >Geez, I consider a movie in a theater expensive at $6/person, and that's >about $3/hour. Let's keep things in perspective, here!) > >Andrew Burt ncar!isis!aburt If you want to keep things in perspective, then you should bear in mind that the least expensive long distance service available is Reach Out at $7.55 per hour. The various long distance carriers all get between 12-14 cents per minute in the middle of the night and all day Saturday/Sunday. None of them notify you as you go along regards the amount of their service being used. Long distance may not be (to you) inexpensive, but I think it is quite a bargain. In any event, Telenet is asking for $1 per hour, and has agreed to permit multiple accounts per user/household. If you think $1 per hour is some sort of ripoff, then I cannot understand why you even own a modem. You say 'at $30 per month PCP will cost more than your monthly phone bill...' and I can only assume your monthly phone bill is somewhere between $25-30 per month since you did not offer this complaint when PCP was charging $25 per month. What do you think your phone bill would be without PCP? Or would you simply not make as many long distance data calls? -- 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
brian@cbw1.UUCP (Brian Cuthie) (01/08/89)
In article <2384@isis.UUCP> aburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt) writes: >In article <8901050251.AA14569@nessus.telenet.com> dkpurks@nessus.UUCP writes: [...] >> 1. Many people are suggesting that it is the 30 hour monthly >> usage cap ... which concerns them the most. > >Yes, it is. Particularly since PCP was sold as a service with "unlimited" >usage. Given that there are around 500 hours a month available for usage >under the old rules, 30 is awfully small. > >If the cap is in place to discourage heavy usage, let's discuss what "heavy" >usage is. (If this is really the issue then I would say that "heavy" would >be using more than half the available time, or greater than 250 hours a >month. If you want to place a cap at that level then the objections would >die down from many people.) > >Thus, amend my proposal to read: > >A. $1/hr for connect time, with a $30 minimum (that is, > a $30 flat fee for the first 0-250 hours). > >B. $1 for each additional hour above 250 hours. > Huh? If in fact, there are 500 hours of usage under the old rules, what makes you think that 'heavy' usage should account for half of those hours. From what I have read (no, I don't use PC-Persuit; and no that doesn't mean my opinion is less valid either) there are serious resource contention problems with PC-P. If, for a second, you assume that GTE probably get's more than a few calls per day to complain about unavailable resources (such as dial out modems) then it just *may* be possible that part of their plan here is to make the rate structure such that it drives those people who simply connect and hang around for a few hours to be more efficient. Increasing the number of 'flat rate' hours doesn't solve the problem. Since the dial out modems appear to exist only for PC-P, and it takes bucks to increase the size of those pools, guess who has to pay ? >> ... Raising the fixed monthly charge >> penalizes those who use the service less than 30 hours a >> month (which is statistically the vast majority). > >I don't care for ambiguous terms like "vast majority". Is that 50.1% or 99.9%? So WHO CARES if it's 50.1% or 99.9%. It's still a majority and if you're not a member of the majority, then you are a member of the minority. >> 2. When over cap usage billing begins in May 1989, a detailed >> statement will be mailed to you no less than 10 days prior >> to your credit card (or checking) account being debited, if >> your account is to be charged for more than just the fixed >> monthly charge. > >Here I have a MAJOR objection. I really don't count the minutes I'm >logged in, nor does it look like I'd be able to *accurately* count the >minutes even if I wanted to (which I don't, but that's not important >since I **can't**). > >I feel it is incumbent on Telenet to inform me, WHILE I'M LOGGED IN, that >I am about to exceed my usage cap (be it 30 or 250 hours). A warning >one hour, five minutes, and at the point of exceeding it would only be >fair. This is historically untrue. Most local telephone companies offer a service that is called message rate. You are alloted a certain number of calls (65 here in Maryland) and have to pay some fee ($.09) per call after that threshold has been met. Cellular telephone is based on usage. I have a plan which provides a certain number of free minutes beyond which I must pay $$$. Do they tell me when I've crossed the threshold ?? NO WAY! They want to make money and they hope I don't notice. They are under no obligation to warn me simply because I don't count/time my own calls. GTE has been clear on what they think the service should cost. Don't expect them to pamper you because you lack the ability to accurately count the number of hours on their system. It is *their* system and they have a right to charge for it. Fortunately this is a country where you have *many* other choices. If you don't like the rates then don't use it. >Geez, I consider a movie in a theater expensive at $6/person, and that's >about $3/hour. Let's keep things in perspective, here!) Yea, let's. What does the price of a movie have to do with this !? >Andrew Burt ncar!isis!aburt -brian -- Brian D. Cuthie uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian Columbia, MD brian@umbc3.umd.edu
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (01/08/89)
In article <7400@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >Long distance may not be (to you) inexpensive, but I think it is quite a >bargain. In any event, Telenet is asking for $1 per hour, and has agreed to >permit multiple accounts per user/household. If you think $1 per hour is >some sort of ripoff, then I cannot understand why you even own a modem. You >say 'at $30 per month PCP will cost more than your monthly phone bill...' >and I can only assume your monthly phone bill is somewhere between $25-30 >per month since you did not offer this complaint when PCP was charging $25 >per month. What do you think your phone bill would be without PCP? Or would >you simply not make as many long distance data calls? > I agree. I only wish we could get it up here in Canada. I think that Telenet might want to go one step farther and not ask you to buy multiple accounts, but just bill a flat $1/hr after the first 30 hours. Otherwise you are going to have to guestimate your usage to the closest 30 hours and pre-subsribe for that amount. Also it will be a royal pain in the ass to have to change you dialing scripts after you exceed each 30 hour increment to use a new account number. Another alternative would be to introduce a different type of service (seeing as they are introducing one new service, a second shouldn't be that hard). Have an Extended PC Pursuit service. Charge $50/month plus $1/hr after the first 50 hours. Now, how about all you folks suggesting to Telenet in your messages to them that it would be nice if your northern neighbours could use PC Pursuit as well! We'd even pay the bills in $US. Now that we have free trade why shouldn't we get access to some of these neat services? -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright) (01/08/89)
In article <7400@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >And they have said any questions >about the charges each month will be answered in a DETAILED accounting which >you will recieve. It will look a lot like your phone bill, with a list of >connections and times listed one after another. Either you have inside information, or your reading something into the messages which really isn't there. Telenet has said that users will receive a bill on or about the 15th of the following month which says how many hours you are billed for. They have not said what form this billing will take. There have been many messages which ask for just such a detailed billing procedure, but none from Telenet. I think it is valid to question the form of the new bills. A bill which simply lists total hours and cost due is unacceptable. Would you pay a phone bill which said "By mah reckonin' you dun 40 hours of phone callin'. You owes me $75."? The point is exaggerated, but it is still an unanswered issue.
pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) (01/08/89)
In article <630@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>, jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright) writes: > > Would you pay a phone bill which said "By mah reckonin' you dun 40 > hours of phone callin'. You owes me $75."? > A lot of us do, where economies similar to PC Pursuit are available. For in- stance, NYNEX offers an intrastate (NY) toll call discount schedule: a flat fee for up to n hours, then a reduced rate for usage above that point. In return, it sends us a summary bill with no call itemization. So I have to keep track of my usage myself, to know how much I've spent and to be able to doublecheck the phone company's claims. No one forces me to use this service. I do because it saves me money. But to guarantee that I save money I have to keep track of what I am doing. Seems fair enough to me. greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/08/89)
I am amazed at all the people who seem to think that GTE is a non-profit organization duty-bound to find the nicest system for you. People say, Telenet should just charge $1/hour over 30 hours. Just like AT&T's Reach Out America always bills by the minute, right? Telenet is running a business. They are selling bulk service in 30 hour units. If you don't like it, go to another service, or start your own. If you really thing you could make more money than they do, they would be glad (assuming they trust you) to sell you their whole net at night for their current revenue figures, and let you resell it according to your "superior" scheme. People have to realize that unlimited use schemes are not, and never were there because the vendors want everybody to make unlimited use. They are there because it makes billing far easier and cheaper for both the customer and the company; because most people are small users and thus subsidize the heavy users and because in regulated areas, a monopoly phone company can make more money that way. But watch yourself. In many areas, local calling is "unlimited use." What if everybody just started making all-day-long local calls, running networks over them, replacing leased lines and setting up permanent intercoms. Or if they chained them together to make long distance calls or fake out FX service? I can tell you right away the unlimited use would disappear. Unlimited use service is an admistrative convenience that only lasts when it isn't abused. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (01/08/89)
In article <630@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu> jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright) writes: >Either you have inside information, or your reading something into >the messages which really isn't there. Telenet has said that users >will receive a bill on or about the 15th of the following month which >says how many hours you are billed for. They have not said what form >this billing will take. There have been many messages which ask for >just such a detailed billing procedure, but none from Telenet. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I think it is valid to question the form of the new bills. A >bill which simply lists total hours and cost due is unacceptable. >Would you pay a phone bill which said "By mah reckonin' you dun 40 >hours of phone callin'. You owes me $75."? > >The point is exaggerated, but it is still an unanswered issue. The second letter from Telenet, which amended the original letter from last weekend, referred to DETAILED billing after the initial 30 hour package was used. If the bill for Pursuit even slightly resembles the bill for Telemail (a Telenet product for which I have an account) or the billing sent to their corporate customers, it will be *quite* detailed. The billing I get for Telemail lists to the minute the amount of time I was online via the toll free 800 number, for example, and the number of messages sent, etc. The tone of your message makes it sound as if those people are real shysters who practice mail fraud by sending out undocumented bills. -- 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
rich@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Rich Andrews) (01/08/89)
In article <8901050251.AA14569@nessus.telenet.com> dkpurks@nessus.UUCP (System Administrator) writes: > > ADDITIONAL ANNOUNCEMENTS and ANSWERs to COMMON QUESTIONS > REGARDING PC PURSUIT PRICE CHANGE ANNOUNCEMENT. > > > To ALL PC Pursuit customers: > > There has been an overwhelming response to the recent price > > 1. WE HAVE DECIDED TO WAIVE THE LIMITATION OF ONE ACCOUNT PER > PERSON. There is now NO LIMIT to the number of PC Pursuit > accounts that can be ordered/owned by a single person. Gee that is really is not acceptable to me...how about a higher cap for more money....say $20 for 30 additional hours and 10 dollars for another 30, and 10 more for unlimited PCP usage? > > < text deleted> > Gee I thought that the whole purpose was to make a little money on some network equipment when it was not being used. The original concept some how got lost in there somewhere. It seems that everyone I know is going to drop PCP as soon as the time limit goes into effect. When the Consumer Utilities Board took away Call-Pak (metro service to some) here in chicago the people did not complain loudly enough as they tried to do the same thing in Indiana and CUB got shot down. If the idea is to make PCP profitable then maybe it just another case of corporate greed as the equipment is going to be there if it is used or not. I cannot imagine that PCP is not profitable. I am going to wait and see what happens and if it goes into effect then I am going to cancel my account. -- Any opinions expressed are my own. Now, for a limited time, they can be yours too, for the incredible price of only $19.95. Simply send $19.95 (in Alterian dollars) to ...killer!jolnet!rich or rich@jolnet.orpk.il.us.
aburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt) (01/09/89)
> = <7400@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson): >> = <2384@isis.UUCP> aburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt): >>> = dkpurks@telenet >>> 1. Many people are suggesting that it is the 30 hour monthly >>> usage cap ... which concerns them the most. >> >>Yes, it is. Particularly since PCP was sold as a service with "unlimited" >>usage. Given that there are around 500 hours a month available for usage >>under the old rules, 30 is awfully small. > >But the service which was sold last year and the year before are no longer >available. The service you have been purchasing is being discontinued. Is >Telenet required to make something available forever just because they made >it available at one time? No, of course not, but they could have gone about the matter in a way that didn't look like pure greed was the motive. (And if you want to bring capitalism into it, fine, I've already considered that angle and still feel their actions arrogant and insulting.) Instead, I feel that I signed up for a service that after a very short time was changed to something other than I signed up for. >>> ... Raising the fixed monthly charge >>> penalizes those who use the service less than 30 hours a >>> month (which is statistically the vast majority). >> >>I don't care for ambiguous terms like "vast majority". Is that 50.1% or 99.9%? > > >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? >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. As far as PCP already telling me how long I've been connected, thanks for telling me. Now I know. Those semi-random numbers were never explained to be what you say they are. (This lack of proper documentation about telenet has always bothered me, but I never had much cause to care before.) >Do you use any other time sensitive services? Does AT&T tell you when you >have used up your one hour of Reach Out time? Does your local cable company >monitor your use of the system and make you specifically authorize a choice >of programs before playing them, just in case you might have 'miscalculated >how much time you had spent on the movie channel this month'? No, I really prefer to stay away from systems like this. >...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. >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. >>By the way, I do NOT consider $4.50 an hour cheap. > >No, but I consider you to be cheap. If keeping an eye on expeditures, weighing alternatives, and choosing the best deal is cheap, then I'm proud to be "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. 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. >>At $30 a month >>PCP will cost more than my monthly local phone bill, and that's for two >>phone lines. I have NEVER considered long distance inexpensive. I >>would never pay $4.50 for extensive periods of time on the phone. >> >>Geez, I consider a movie in a theater expensive at $6/person, and that's >>about $3/hour. Let's keep things in perspective, here!) >> >If you want to keep things in perspective, then you should bear in mind that >the least expensive long distance service available is Reach Out at $7.55 >per hour. I don't have "reach out" -- I don't make that many long distance calls. By choice. Because it is so expensive. 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. >If you think $1 per hour is >some sort of ripoff, then I cannot understand why you even own a modem. Yeah, but you can't pay it in $1 increments. You have to pay it in $30 increments! >and I can only assume your monthly phone bill is somewhere between $25-30 >per month since you did not offer this complaint when PCP was charging $25 >per month. I thought $25 was high, you're right. >What do you think your phone bill would be without PCP? Or would >you simply not make as many long distance data calls? You got it. I wouldn't call the systems I do. Period. I'd rent a buck movie instead. -- Andrew Burt ncar!isis!aburt "Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time."
David_W_Tamkin@cup.portal.com (01/09/89)
From Patrick Townson's article <7400@chinet.chi.il.us>: > Telenet *DOES AND ALWAYS HAS* told you the length of time of your connection > to a given place. Read the disconnect message when you disconnect from an > outdial. On the right side is a string of figures indicating the number > of days:hours:minutes:seconds the connection was up. Make a note of these > in the same way you estimate during the month how much your telephone long > distance bill is going to be. Telenet provides that information solely when the DAF or outdialer to which you have connected allows you to make a graceful exit back to the Telenet @ prompt. You don't always get your connection time when a DAF locks up and you must escape to the @ prompt and use the d command; and you can bet that you'll never get it on occasions when Telenet locks up as well and you must tell your modem to hang up! Since at no time can you predict whether the host will behave well enough during a call you are about to place to let you make it all the way to a graceful exit back to Telenet, you have to have your own timekeeping to keep track of your PCP usage once the hourly rates start. And even then it is anyone's guess how much time they'll tally when you cannot issue the @d command. Moreover, I would always compare my own timing of a PCP connection to the length Telenet gives in the disconnection information, just to see how close to reality they come and how frequently they overstate it. The thing never to do is to shut your modem off lazily instead of issuing the proper logout commands. David_W_Tamkin@cup.portal.com ... sun!portal!cup.portal.com!david_w_tamkin Portal's management and its other customers do their own thinking; I do mine.
rich@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Rich Andrews) (01/09/89)
In article <7410@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >The tone of your message makes it sound as if those people are real shysters >who practice mail fraud by sending out undocumented bills. I am really tired of getting screwed every time I turn around. First it was CUB and now telenet. CUB told Ill Bell to drop call pak and IBT was more than happy to oblige. Now the average phone bill is higher than what it was and now IBT is starting to drop rates again because they are making too much money. I think that most of the people who have accounts with telenet are going to drop the service and get telebits and use AT&T long distance and save money. rich andrews -- Any opinions expressed are my own. Now, for a limited time, they can be yours too, for the incredible price of only $19.95. Simply send $19.95 (in Alterian dollars) to ...killer!jolnet!rich or rich@jolnet.orpk.il.us.
jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright) (01/09/89)
In article <7410@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >The second letter from Telenet, which amended the original letter from last >weekend, referred to DETAILED billing after the initial 30 hour package was >used. Yes, they referred to this. Does this mean they'll include both dollars AND cents? :-) >If the bill for Pursuit even slightly resembles the bill for Telemail >(a Telenet product for which I have an account) or the billing sent to their >corporate customers, it will be *quite* detailed. Ok, if it does, good. I'd like to know this before the bill arrives. >The tone of your message makes it sound as if those people are real shysters >who practice mail fraud by sending out undocumented bills. This wasn't intended. I hoped to make that clear in the final line of the posting. (Referred to obvious exaggeration in message.)
jamesd@percival.UUCP (James Deibele) (01/09/89)
In article <7410@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >The tone of your message makes it sound as if those people are real shysters >who practice mail fraud by sending out undocumented bills. No, they're real incompetents who send out incorrect bills. There was a major problem in 1987 with inaccurate bills being sent out by GTE. Ask anyone who's ever experienced the tender mercies of using US Sprint what they think about the accuracy of the bills they receive. If Telemail bills are accurate, they are the only part of GTE that seems to be capable of generating proper bills. We'll wait and see what happens with the new system, hmmm? -- James S. Deibele jamesd@qiclab or jamesd@percival TECHbooks: The Computer Book Specialists (800) TECH-BKS 12600 SW 1st Beaverton, OR 97005 (503) 646-8257 TECHbooks One BBS (#1:105/4.0); 3/12/24 (503) 760-1473
ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (01/10/89)
This reminds me of a skit by a comedian (I think it might have been Flip Wilson) that tells the story of a kid's lemonade stand that had a sign that said "All the lemonade you can drink for a dime." A customer put down his dime and drank up a glass of lemonade and then asked for a refill. The kid refused. The customer pointed out that the sign said "All the lemonade you can drink for a dime." The kid pointed out that one glass is all the lemonade you can drink for a dime. -Ron All the news that's fit to print.
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (01/10/89)
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
jpdres10@usl-pc.usl.edu (Green Eric Lee) (01/11/89)
In message <1446@percival.UUCP>, jamesd@percival.UUCP (James Deibele) says: >No, they're real incompetents who send out incorrect bills. There was a major >problem in 1987 with inaccurate bills being sent out by GTE. Ask ^^^ >ever experienced the tender mercies of using US Sprint what they think about ^^^^^^^^^ >If Telemail bills are accurate, they are the only part of GTE that ^^^ Note that GTE no longer owns any part of US Sprint or Telenet. To their credit, they bailed out quite awhile ago (long before the recent PC Pursuit rate change fiasco). Telenet is owned by United Telecom, the parent company of both Telenet and US Sprint. I hate to see a good company repeatedly slandered needlessly... it's not GTE's fault that Telenet's PC Pursuit outdial manager needs some help (specifically, a primer in public relations, and an idea of what service he's selling... I got the feeling that he was genuinely shocked at the outrage over the rate change). As for US Sprint, weren't they recently sued for charging for "BUSY" signals? Or was that some other long distance carrier? -- Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 {uunet!dalsqnt,killer}!usl!elg
chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (01/11/89)
If I may step in for a moment.... >In article <2385@isis.UUCP> aburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt) writes: >>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. In article <7420@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >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? No; but as I see it, people seem to feel that what GTE did is different. A more appropriate analogy would be going into an inexpensive restaurant, buying the all-you-can-eat salad bar, and upon leaving, being presented with a big bill and the explanation, `oh, we dropped the all-you-can-eat deal while you were eating.' I am *NOT* saying that this is the One True Analogy. I mean only that (as I see it) people feel that this analogy is more appropriate than yours. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
brian@cbw1.UUCP (Brian Cuthie) (01/11/89)
In article <15401@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: >If I may step in for a moment.... [...] > >No; but as I see it, people seem to feel that what GTE did is different. >A more appropriate analogy would be going into an inexpensive restaurant, >buying the all-you-can-eat salad bar, and upon leaving, being presented >with a big bill and the explanation, `oh, we dropped the all-you-can-eat >deal while you were eating.' > No, I would ammend this to read: A person likes going to an all-you-can-eat place and finds one day that the sign reads: "Notice, all-you-can-eat policy will be terminated in 3 months." The result being that the person finds a new place to eat. Telenet is *not* changing the billing status of their system in mid use. They *are* giving 3 months notice of a change in that service. Perfectly fair. As a side note, I haven't quite figured out what it is that makes people think that businesses exist for their pleasure. Telenet was *never* intended to do anything but make big $$$$ during the day from other businesses. They recognized excess capacity at night could be used by home computer hobbiests. They structured their rates according to what they, at that time, thought were fair. How could they know that some people would use more that 100 hours per month. Actually, I don't understand what the big complaint is. PCP is effectively $1.00/hour to anywhere you like (that they serve, of course). Long distance phone rates are more like $15.00/hour. Considering that you may now buy as many hours at $1.00/hour that you like (albeit in 30 hour increments), WHAT IS THE BASIS OF ALL THE BELLY ACHING ???? -brian -- Brian D. Cuthie uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian Columbia, MD brian@umbc3.umd.edu