dam@mtqua.att.com (Daniel A Margolis) (02/24/90)
The ability to suspend Call Waiting is called *TONE-BLOCK* here in New Jersey Bell land, but here's the catch - you have to subscribe to it. You have to pay 50 cents extra per month to use it. Dan Margolis
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (02/26/90)
> [Moderator's Note: But for that fifty cents per month for the right to > interim dial tone, what prevents you from dialing whatever you want against > that dial tone, i.e. a complete number of another party? I don't > think you are correct on this. PT] There is dial tone on my statewide 800 number. You might ask, "What would prevent someone from making calls on that line (for which it is not tariffed)?" If you dial anything other than an intercom code, you get a recording. The reason for the dial tone in the first place is so that the line can access the Commstar features, and calls can be transferred. Maybe the "Tone Block" interim dial tone is so restricted if the customer doesn't have three way calling. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
c186aj@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) (02/26/90)
In article <4319@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >The ability to suspend Call Waiting is called *TONE-BLOCK* here in New >Jersey Bell land, but here's the catch - you have to subscribe to it. >You have to pay 50 cents extra per month to use it. The same thing was true last year when I lived in GTE land in Washington State. Maybe SWB should give everyone call waiting for free, then charge $10/month for cancel call waiting - then they would effectively have their modem surcharge! :-)
tel@cdsdb1.att.com (Tom Lowe) (02/28/90)
>In article <4348@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tel@cdsdb1.att.com (Tom Lowe) writes: > > > The ability to suspend Call Waiting is called *TONE-BLOCK* here in New > > > Jersey Bell land, but here's the catch - you have to subscribe to it. > > > You have to pay 50 cents extra per month to use it. > > Not necessarily true...I have it and I don't pay 50 cents per month > > for it. > > Does anyone out there in Bell Atlantic country pay for this fifty > > cents/month Tone Block Feature? If I remember, I'll give the business > > office a call next week and ask them some questions. > Allen Hom at ahom@rruxff.cc.bellcore.com replied: > I have tone block (as well as other CLASS services). When I had > signed up for the services, the "salesperson" did mention the $0.50 > extra charge for this service, and I see that charge monthly on my > phone bill. Well worth the service, especially when you dial into > work from home. I did call the business office to ask about Tone Block. They informed me that it is not available in my area. I told them that I use it and it works and they informed me that I don't use it and it doesn't work. Well, I use it all the time and it works. That explains why I don't pay 50 cents a month for it. I agree that 50 cents would be worth it if I had to pay. This wasn't the first time I had a hard time getting a logical answer from the business office. It's frustrating living in a place where the telco doesn't even know what their switches can and can't do. Tom Lowe tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM [Moderator's Note: Why don't you take a copy of this message, find out who is the manager of the business office where you called, and send him a copy of it. Advise him that you do indeed use Tone Block, a/k/a Cancel (Suspend) Call-Waiting; i.e. *70, 1170, 70# or whatever your switch requires, and add a note saying, "would you please only allow employees who have been trained to work with subscribers and answer their questions to take customer calls in the future." And mail it to him by name at the street address of that business office. PT]
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (03/02/90)
Tom Lowe <tel@cdsdb1.att.com> writes: > I agree that 50 cents would be worth it if I had to pay. This wasn't > the first time I had a hard time getting a logical answer from the > business office. It's frustrating living in a place where the telco > doesn't even know what their switches can and can't do. Just this past week, a Digest reader contacted me for help because Pac*Bell insisted upon charging him for an unlisted phone even though he has listed service at the same address in his name. The rep insisted that this didn't matter and that he would have to pay for at least one unlisted line, but that subsequent lines would be unlisted at no charge. I kept telling him to go back and ask for supervisors, etc., but numerous calls to the business office netted the same answer. No one would budge on this point. Finally I reached a contact of mine at PB who gave me chapter and verse from the handbook that confirms the policy of not charging for unlisted "second" service. Had it not been for that information, this person would probably still be unfairly charged for an unlisted line. It's bad enough that the customer has to educate the reps on correct procedure, but it's even worse that the initial reps wouldn't even take the trouble to look up the applicable sections in the handbook. How many people do you suppose are out there paying for things they need not pay for, or worse, paying for things they don't even have? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Smart consultants earn a good part of their living by cutting a deal with their clients where they audit the phone bill for a period of several months past. Then they take a percentage of whatever they save their client. Incorrect billing by local telcos due to changes in equipment and service never recorded correctly is a scandal. Illinois Bell has had cases where they were forced to refund over a million dollars to a single customer based on errors in a single year alone. PT]
dhk@uunet.uu.net> (03/14/90)
From article <4628@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon): > Tom Lowe <tel@cdsdb1.att.com> writes: [Tale of woe about ill-educated service reps deleted] > [Moderator's Note: Smart consultants earn a good part of their living by > cutting a deal with their clients where they audit the phone bill for > a period of several months past. Then they take a percentage of whatever ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Sleezy Practice) > they save their client. Incorrect billing by local telcos due to changes > in equipment and service never recorded correctly is a scandal. Legend has it that this kind of "consulting" was at one time very common in the trucking industry. The "consultant" would tell the client that they would cut the client's phone bill by a large percentage, by finding billing errors and "optimizing the network". They would take, as their fee, up to half of the savings, sometimes for as much as five year's worth. They would then take a quick look for errors, and if there wern't enough savings to provide a large enough fee, they'd start ripping out WATS and 800 lines. They would then block LD calls on local lines. Sure enough, the phone bills would drop dramatically. The "consultant" would get their fee, and go on his way. Of course, when the truckers customers couldn't reach the company, and the dispatchers couldn't get an outside line, and revenues started dropping. I agree that billing errors are rampant, especially where equipment was transferred from the Bell Operating Company to AT&T at divisiture. We have found cases where the client was being billed for equipment that had been removed (or ordered removed) even before '83. And we still see cases where the Telco is charging for CPE that AT&T is also charging for. Our policy, and that of most reputable consultants, is that any savings or refunds that we find are the client's. We feel that we can make a reasonable profit on our hourly fees alone. Our clients seem to agree, at least they keep calling back :-). Don H Kemp "Always listen to experts. They'll B B & K Associates, Inc. tell you what can't be done, and Rutland, VT why. Then do it." uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk Lazarus Long [Moderator's Note: Indeed, it was a much more common approach years ago then now; but even then, the ethical consultants signed a contract with the client saying they would divide the 'savings' in two parts: the telco billing errors in one group and the service configuration/ judgment calls in another. They agreed to discuss both categories with the client. Obviously, the billing errors were reported and corrected. Regards the other, the client agreed in the contract that if he chose to implement the recommendations of the consultant at any time in the near future -- say the next year -- he was liable for that portion of the fees the consultant would have earned had the changes been made at the time of the consultation. PT]