henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) (10/08/90)
I get two bills for my home phones. It seems pointless (I mail the payments in the same envelope, etc). It seems reasonable to ask NET to bill them together. Any reasons why I shouldn't do this? Any reason why they wouldn't do this? Clues will be welcome. # Henry Mensch / <henry@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # <hmensch@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay> / <henry@tts.lth.se> / <mensch@munnari.oz.au> # via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell is willing to issue one bill each month showing all numbers 'associated' with a main number provided the service is at the same location and the phones are on the same prefix and in the same billing cycle. This is good since it allows the useage from all lines in the account group to mutually contribute to volume discounts in pricing, etc. PAT]
BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) (10/10/90)
In article <13164@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Henry Mensch <henry@garp.mit.edu> writes: > I get two bills for my home phones. It seems pointless (I mail the > payments in the same envelope, etc). It seems reasonable to ask NET > to bill them together. Any reasons why I shouldn't do this? Any > reason why they wouldn't do this? I have the same problem with the same LEC. My lines are in a hunt group even, but they have different classes of service. It is the class of service difference, they say, that makes them be billed seperately. One line in METRO (actually CIRCLE which includes METRO), and the other in CONTIG. If your lines are in the same exchange, they should be on the same billing cycle. N.B. that some Cambridge lines out of the same CO (Ware St., not Bent St.) can't be billed together and can't hunt to the other exchange. The problem here is some are stuck on the old # 1 ESS, and others are on the # 5 ESS.
dorl@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Michael (NMI)) (10/10/90)
In article <13164@accuvax.nwu.edu>, henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) writes... >I get two bills for my home phones. It seems pointless (I mail the >payments in the same envelope, etc). It seems reasonable to ask NET >to bill them together. Any reasons why I shouldn't do this? Any >reason why they wouldn't do this? I ordered a second line for my home the other day and was confronted with the same situation. The agent asked if I wanted one bill or two. I replied that I did not care. She then asked what kind of service I wanted. I told her I wanted 60 calls (our other phone is unlimited) and she said in that case, the two bill plan would be cheaper. I suspect that if I had ordered the same kind of service they would have combined the bills. Our phone book has a very good explanation of rates but no mention of this anomaly is included. Makes about as much sense as the $0.01 refund check my daughter got from Wisc Bell last week with $0.45 postage. Michael Dorl (608) 262-0466 fax (608) 262-4679 dorl@vms.macc.wisc.edu MACC / University of Wisconsin - Madison dorl@wiscmacc.bitnet 1210 W. Dayton St. / Madison, WI 53706
dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) (10/21/90)
Policies vary from telco to telco. When my second number was an auxiliary line of my first number, I had to accept a single bill from Centel to get the auxiliary-line billing arrangement. The two drew off the same prepayment for message units, regardless of which line I placed a local call from, and ANAC gave the main number for both. Some long-distance companies listed all calls as having been dialed from the main number; some listed them separately. AT&T told me, contrary to what I've since read here in Telecom Digest, that I'd need separate ROA accounts for the two lines and would have to pay two minima per month or take ROA on only one line. I told AT&T no thanks. Later I realized that CallPak 200 would not be enough (especially after they fixed the billing software error that was allowing me four hundred units per month before billing additional units instead of just the two hundred I was paying for) and wanted to switch to CallPak Unlimited. Centel told me that (unlike the old "Family Plan" in Illinois Bell's CallPak days, where any residential CallPak could cover two lines for about 20% more cost than for having it on a single line) they would not allow auxiliary lines with CallPak Unlimited; that would allow (for the flat $6.91 per month for an auxiliary line) unlimited Inner Met calling from both lines. I would have to get separate billing and at least CallPak 80 on the other number. Since I make enough calls to Barrington (outside the Inner Met area but still cheaper to dial via Centel than via an IEC), I figured heck, I'll use up the eighty units by making Outer Met and other intra-LATA calls from my CallPak 80 line, and if I go over the eighty units, extra Outer Met units cost the same from either number. So now I get two bills, sometimes arriving a day apart but usually coming together. ANAC (for the few months afterward that I could still reach it) gave each line's own number and long-distance bills now show the number of the line I called from, not that that matters much. I can still enclose a single check and both bills' payment coupons in one envelope if I drop the payment off at a Centel night depository; I hesitate to think what would happen if I tried to mail a single check to their collection center in Lincoln, though: they'd probably credit the whole payment to only one number and I'd need to get the Des Plaines office not only to reallocate the payment but also to remove the late charges: Lincoln's done that before. Anyhow, ask the telco; I'm sure they'd prefer combining your bills just to save on paper, postage, and inserts. I've told Centel that they're welcome to stuff my bills into one envelope; unfortunately, the billing facility in Lincoln isn't sophisticated enough. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com
mikes@gammafax.gammalink.com (mike spann) (10/23/90)
In article <13831@accuvax.nwu.edu> dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: > I hesitate to think what would happen if I tried to mail a >single check to their collection center in Lincoln, though: they'd >probably credit the whole payment to only one number and I'd need to >get the Des Plaines office not only to reallocate the payment but also >to remove the late charges: Lincoln's done that before. I pay four separate phone bills mailed to two addresses and with three different billing names with a single check each month. The bills come in two batches, (three on a 969 prefix and one on a 961 prefix) one week apart. I have never had Pac Bell incorrectly process my payment (knock on wood). Michael Spann mikes@gammalink.com Voice: +1-408-744-1430 Fax: +1-408-744-1549 UUCP: ...!uunet!gammafax!mikes CIS: 73747,441
faunt@cisco.com (Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269) (10/24/90)
PacBell sends me three bills for three residential lines, same address, same owner, that all arrive on the same day. When I had the third number installed, and asked for combined billing, they told me it would cost extra, but they did assign me a number in the same prefix, after first telling me the number would have a different prefix, in order to get the bills to me on the same day. They credited random amounts to different bills several times, and finally told me to notate the check as to how much went for each bill. That seems to have cured the problem. This is in 415-655.
zellich@stl-07sima.army.mil (Rich Zellich) (10/26/90)
When I moved from a condo in St. Louis to a house out in the 'burbs, I
"transferred" my existing account to a local-only number, and also had
a second line installed in the new location with Metro (toll-free
to/from St. Louis metro-area) service.
Initially, I received three transition bills - one for each of the new
lines, and one for the discontinued service. The old-service bill was
because the service overlapped for about a week and the turn-off date
Southwestern Bell's computer had was two days after the billing cutoff
period, and they charged me for the entire month.
The three bills were extremely confusing and, during a long
conversation with Customer Service, I was told that I would continue
to get two bills, one for each new number, because they were different
prefixes/one was metro and the two prefixes had different billing
cutoff dates. I protested this, telling the lady that it seemed wrong
since both prefixes were actually served by the same local plant
(metro or not, the Metro number is still a local prefix), but she
insisted they couldn't do it any other way as long as I had one local
and one Metro line.
So yesterday I get my first "regular" bill for the new location. Lo
and behold, the credit for a partial month for the old service, the
local, and the Metro numbers are all on the same bill, with separate
detail breakout of each, and a polite little note is enclosed telling
me that my billing cutoff date is changed due to the move to a new CO!
Gee, just the way I thought it should work -- so much for Customer
"Service".
The only thing they still do wrong is that they lump all the charges
for the line into one "service" amount - a total of $28.75 for one
line with Metro service and TouchTone and one line with local-only
service and pulse-dial only. I really think they should break out
each of the charges so I know I'm getting/paying for the features I
ordered. I suspect this is done so nobody complains about the
TouchTone charge that would then be thrust under their noses month
after month. They *do* break out a $1.10 charge that is supposed to
be for "extended area" service; when questioned, CS stated that this
was an extra charge added because they had widened the free-calling
service area for everybody ... but I'm already paying a $7.60 premium
for Metro service on that line myself ... and the "local" number is
*really* local - the most restricted free-calling area I've ever seen.
In arguing for a detail breakout of the basic "service" charge, I have
new experience: one item on the new bill was a credit for dropping the
second phone-book listing in my wife's maiden name. At one time, we
were entitled to a second listing free, and took advantage of it;
some- where along the line, they started charging *monthly* for it,
and added $1.60/month to the "service" charge lump sum part of the
bill. If I had known about it, I would have canceled the extra
listing two years ago, when we got married and her name was known to
have changed by one and all.
The above-mentioned $28.75 is another CS screwup. When I ordered the
service, I was told it was $36.85 (including the $1.10 extended area
charge, which wasn't even mentioned) *plus* the $7 Federal End User
Common Line Charges, which would have added up to $43.85. It turns
out to be only $28.75, plus $1.10, plus $7, for a *grand total* of
$36.85.
The full breakout turns out to be:
Line 1 (listed) - $ 9.65
Line 1 Federal End User... - 3.50
Line 2 (unlisted) - 9.65 [no charge for not listing
Line 2 Metro (wide-area) - 7.60 second line]
Line 2 TouchTone - 1.85
Line 2 extended area charge - 1.10
Line 2 Federal End User... - 3.50
------
$36.85
(plus miscellaneous taxes, of course)brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) (10/27/90)
I too had problems some years ago with multiple bills that I paid on a single check until I got into the habit of stapling the bills and check together and folding them lengthwise. This causes the whole package to be rejected by the machine that normally extracts the bill and check from the envelope, and forces a person to deal with it as a whole. I did find that it sometimes took them up to an extra week to credit the payment. The returned checks didn't look damaged in any way, so I don't think the machine jammed (most use suction cups, so staples don't hurt them anyway). Since I've moved, Pac Bell have been handling multiple bills and one check in an envelope much better, so I don't use the staple and fold trick. Perhaps they've improved their procedures or equipment. Brian
jlister@marob.masa.com (John Lister) (10/27/90)
I don't seem to have that problem. I ordered two phone lines from NJ Bell when I moved into my house 18 months ago. Two different numbers on the same exchange, one bill. Even better, the second line was given at a discount rate precisely BECAUSE they could bill to the same address. And, it wasn't published, so that I can cheerfully ignore incoming calls on it, because they have to be from random dialling. I recently ordered another phone line (decided I wanted two voice + modem and the builder wired the house with six-pair cable, so what the hell). Different exchange (from the same building) but still one bill. John Lister