In the referenced message, Chris Beggy said:
> Wcom's overbilling will be investigated:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but this would seem to be less
on-topic than the somewhat regular gossip about who's filing for
bankruptcy today (which is only marginally on-topic, imho, since the
data is gen
-- Forwarded Message
From: joe mcguckin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 21:43:23 -0700
To: Hank Nussbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wcom overbilling
On 7/6/02 9:04 PM, "Hank Nussbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 04:50 PM 06-07
At 04:50 PM 06-07-02 +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>.. which is why I think people (especially US altho it seems to be coming more
>the normal in other markets) use EBITDA as it smooths out the bumps even
>tho the
>bumps are still there!
>
>The other nice thing in the telecoms world about EBI
> I would just like to mention that while our Worldcom bills were *always*
> wrong, our UUnet bills have always been exactly correct. My only hope is
> that when this mess settles down, UUnet is still maintained as a separate
> entity.
Ditto, on both points. (1) When MIBH was a UUNT customer a
At 09:41 AM 7/6/2002 -1000, you wrote:
>: 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
I would just like to mention that while our Worldcom bills were *always*
wrong, our UUnet bills have always been exactly correct. My only hope is
that when this mess settles down, UUnet is still maintained as a separate
entity.
--
Bruce Robertson, President/CEO +1-
: 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
At 10:44 AM 7/6/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>I don't think we've done business with *any* telco that hasn't
>overbilled us, both LECs (BellSouth, GTE/Verizon, Cincinnati Bell, ICG,
>Adelphia), and l/d (wcom, T, MCI, probably others that I'm forgetting
>about).
Focal and Sprint Internet are the only t
At 11:37 7/6/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Jeff Mcadams wrote:
>
>>Also sprach Dan Hollis
>>
>>>On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Chris Beggy wrote:
>>>
Wcom's overbilling will be investigated:
Sure will be, the SEC is including that in its investigation.
See:
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/scottmoritz/
If the accounting isnt fraudulent (ie truly cooked, and I assume any intentional
overbilling is fraud regardless of where the figures go) then surely overbilling
will have the effect of reducing profit.
.. which is why I think people (especially US altho it seems to be coming more
the normal in
Jeff Mcadams wrote:
> Also sprach Dan Hollis
>
>>On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Chris Beggy wrote:
>>
>>>Wcom's overbilling will be investigated:
>>>
>
>>Is there a single wcom customer on nanog that *hasn't* been overbilled?
>>
If they were _underbilled_, by any carrier, they would be unlikely to
g
Also sprach Dan Hollis
>On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Chris Beggy wrote:
>> Wcom's overbilling will be investigated:
>Is there a single wcom customer on nanog that *hasn't* been overbilled?
I don't think we've done business with *any* telco that hasn't
overbilled us, both LECs (BellSouth, GTE/Verizon, Ci
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Chris Beggy wrote:
> > Wcom's overbilling will be investigated:
>
> Is there a single wcom customer on nanog that *hasn't* been overbilled?
>
> -Dan
I really really shouldn't do this to myself but...
Our UUNet invoice has been correct every month since the T1 circuit was
i
At 08:47 PM 7/5/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>I have not been at one company, not one, service provider or otherwise that
>has not had major WCOM billing issues. No matter how large or small we
>were.
In dealing with them in one form or another since 1994 when I started
Tellurian Networks (Garden Ne
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Dave Stewart wrote:
> At 08:42 PM 7/5/2002, Dan Hollis wrote:
> >Is there a single wcom customer on nanog that *hasn't* been overbilled?
> I heard once that there was, but I think it's actually an urban legend.
I haven't been... yet ;>
Reminds me of motorcycles - there's two
At 08:42 PM 7/5/2002, Dan Hollis wrote:
>Is there a single wcom customer on nanog that *hasn't* been overbilled?
I heard once that there was, but I think it's actually an urban legend.
gt;
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: wcom overbilling
>
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Chris Beggy wrote:
> > Wcom's overbilling will be investigated:
>
> Is there a single wcom customer on nanog that *hasn't* been overbilled?
>
> -Dan
> --
> [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
>
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Chris Beggy wrote:
> Wcom's overbilling will be investigated:
Is there a single wcom customer on nanog that *hasn't* been overbilled?
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
Wcom's overbilling will be investigated:
http://www.ctnow.com/business/hc-worldcomcover0704.artjul04.story?coll=hc%2Dheadlines%2Dbusiness
Chris
msg03355/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
19 matches
Mail list logo
