wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) (04/19/88)
The April '88 issue of "The Office" magazine just came in today's mail, and I noted the following in the "Telecommunications Insights" column by Thomas J. Hargadon, page 28: [Refers to previous column which described Sprint billing foul-ups, and continues:] "One very large company uses US Sprint BECAUSE of these problems. It says that the bills arrive anywhere from one to six months late, giving them a nice cash cushion, and usually come with less than 70% of the calls they know they made. US Sprint will have to shape up fast, because such problems cannot last much longer, if it wishes to survive." He then goes on to mention COCOT problems such as have been discussed here recently. I just wonder if his dire predictions as to Sprint's fate are really valid. It seems to me that the charges for Long Distance service don't really have a lot to do with the actual costs of providing that service, and it may well be that Sprint will continue blundering along, thrashing wildly with its billings, and still make enough to survive. Anyway, I thought I'd post this because it demonstrates a viewpoint which differs from those of earlier Sprint-billing comments. Regards, Will Martin
jordan@ADS.COM (Jordan Hayes) (04/20/88)
"One very large company uses US Sprint BECAUSE of these problems. It says that the bills arrive anywhere from one to six months late, giving them a nice cash cushion, and usually come with less than 70% of the calls they know they made." Well, the party's over. I did this as well, and in this month's Pacific Bell bill, I received a bill from Sprint for the last 6 months worth of calls ... a small note at the bottom said "We hope this isn't an inconvienience" ... grrr ... so much for any scratch money I had budgeted for this month ... /jordan