bote@uunet.uu.net> (05/04/91)
MCI dropped the shoe yesterday by announcing that it was suspending
all new orders for 900 service due to "eight figure losses" in that
department.
How does any company let things get that bad before taking action?
Did their overabundance of sleazy programs lead to excessive caller
refusals to pay, and therefore to the losses? Or was it good old
fashioned mis-management?
(bill@toto exempt from the above questions.)
John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote
SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signallingJohn Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (05/06/91)
John Boteler <csense!bote@uunet.uu.net> writes: > MCI dropped the shoe yesterday by announcing that it was suspending > all new orders for 900 service due to "eight figure losses" in that > department. This is the opposite of the way Telesphere (who recently called it quits completely, advising its long distance customers to select another provider) handled its 900 service. First, it required information providers to post an "uncollectables" bond that was handy for use as capital for Telesphere's general use. Then when it needed more money, it simply withheld payment to the providers, claiming that it suffered heavy collection difficulties on that account. When the providers (Telesphere's customers) got together, they discovered everyone seemed to have "collection difficulties" at the same time or particularly when call counts were high. Many providers, expecting a big monthly check because of high volume, were given the bad news by Telesphere that not only would they not be getting any money for the month, but that an additional deposit would be required. Since Telesphere provided no ANI nor any accounting detail whatsoever, the providers had to take Telesphere's word for it. Eventually, information providers wised up and there are now many lawsuits against the long distance company. Some providers have even been paid off to get them to drop an action or to refrain from filing one. Sprint and AT&T provide ANI data to the provider so that if there is collection difficulty, the provider can take matters into his own hands. Also, he can keep track of who calls and how much and make sure that no individual caller runs up a major bill that would be unpaid due to claimed hardship. For this reason, neither Sprint nor AT&T will likely have the problems that MCI or Telesphere claim. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) (05/10/91)
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> writes: > Since Telesphere provided no ANI nor any accounting detail whatsoever, > the providers had to take Telesphere's word for it.... > Sprint and AT&T provide ANI data to the provider so that if there is > collection difficulty, the provider can take matters into his own > hands. Also, he can keep track of who calls and how much and make sure > that no individual caller runs up a major bill that would be unpaid > due to claimed hardship. For this reason, neither Sprint nor AT&T will > likely have the problems that MCI or Telesphere claim. Now, follow me closely on this. As an Information Provider (IP), my system can record the time it began processing a call and the time it finished processing a call. Using simple mathematical analysis, I can run a report which shows the duration of each call. I can then cross-reference these records to the detail billing at the end of each month, if necessary. In any case, I know how long the system was in use, therefore I know how much money the carrier owes me, less holdbacks, no matter what ANI info I have. Basically, John's saying that if they want to screw the IPs, they will. I already figured that! :( (I'd still like to know exactly why MCI in particular made this move.) John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling