nanog mailing list archives
Re: wcom overbilling
From: Scott Weeks <surfer () mauislanwanman com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 09:41:31 -1000 (HST)
: It clearly is a revenue source. Once a customer gets a disconnect letter : for their service due to an unpaid balance (which they shouldn't be able to : do if the current non-disputed part is paid in full) then the heads roll : and the padded bill gets paid even though it is wrong. AT&T is infamous for That doesn't seem to help revenue. If that was the case, they'd make money by getting rid of customers all the time. The goal should be to overbill and yet keep the customer. Somehow... scott
Current thread:
- Re: wcom overbilling, (continued)
- Re: wcom overbilling Dave Stewart (Jul 05)
- Re: wcom overbilling Gwendolynn ferch Elydyr (Jul 05)
- Re: wcom overbilling Mark Radabaugh - Amplex (Jul 05)
- Re: wcom overbilling Bruce Robertson (Jul 06)
- Re: wcom overbilling Paul Vixie (Jul 06)
- Re: wcom overbilling Dave Stewart (Jul 05)
- Re: wcom overbilling Jeff Mcadams (Jul 06)
- Re: wcom overbilling Marshall Eubanks (Jul 06)
- Re: wcom overbilling blitz (Jul 06)
- Re: wcom overbilling Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 06)
- Re: wcom overbilling Robert Boyle (Jul 06)
- Re: wcom overbilling Scott Weeks (Jul 06)
- Re: wcom overbilling Robert Boyle (Jul 06)
- Message not available
- Re: wcom overbilling Hank Nussbacher (Jul 06)