🚀 go-pugleaf

To continue this thread,  I have an interesting story about ongoing
misbilling by NET which is probably widespread.

boaz@concerto.lcs.mit.edu (Boaz Ben-Zvi) writes:
>Following N.E.T's announcement of raising some of their rates on 1/15,
>I begun wondering how one may offset some of the hike.
>  Unlimited service costs more than 6-8 bucks above the measured one,
>and gives unlimited service to your local area (your town plus the towns
>surrounding it), which would otherwise cost $.016/minute (plus 1 cent
>per call). I.e., it'll take more than (approx.) 6-8 hours of monthly
>phone use (in the local area!) to make Unlimited service a good choice.
>(Well, some modem-owners use that much in a single day :-)

I saw this about a year ago and after carefully checking that my modem
is to a "free" call signed up for unlimited local which was about $6/mo
cheaper.  However after a month or so, I was getting large bills that
could only be from the modem calls.  I have spent the last year
convincing NET that their software is in error and that I was being
billed for these "free" calls.  Most of the time I have been ignored or
told that I do not know what is going on in my own household.  Two weeks
ago after 50 calls and a formal complaint to the DPU I got someone who
admitted that there was a problem and that the table was incorrect for
our phone.  However he claimed that it was only our phone and nobody
else's.  I do not see how the billing software could only single out our
phone.  I have not gotten a satisfactory reply to that question from NET
and the complaint to the DPU has not been withdrawn.  Since the bill for
unlimited local is not itemized to what numbers are called, it is
difficult to prove or disprove billing mistakes.  I am still asking for
an outside review of the billing system but don't know if I have the
political clout to get it since they have admitted the one mistake and
are stonewalling that there may be others.  If anyone else has had a
similar problem, I would certainly like to hear about it.

Anybody know a good "sleazy" lawyer?  This could be an interesting class
action.  Fortunately I consider it more of a hobby than an annoyance,
also an excuse to withold payment to NET since they owe me big time.

>  The announcement said "New England Telephone does not receive any
>additional revenue as a result of the new rates". Sure, they spend 
>the money we pay them on TV commercials :-)
But they can always just bill you incorrectly and make up the
difference....  :-)  The claim is that you get a cheaper rate since they
don't have to itemize your calls, and then they can charge you for
whatever calls they feel like.  YIKES!

Scott Hannahs, F. Bitter National Magnet Lab, MIT NW14-1313, 253-5570
sth@slipknot.mit.edu