Is there a single wcom customer on nanog that *hasn't* been overbilled?
-Dan
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.
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 kinds of riders... those that have
fallen down - and those that will ;>
I'm just waiting for the overbill ;>
cheers!
In dealing with them in one form or another since 1994 when I started Tellurian Networks (Garden Networks at the time) and since setting up my first WAN in 1989, I've NEVER had a bill from WCom/UUNet/MCI which was right - EVER. They always claim they have fixed the problem, but they never do. They apply credits to invoices on different accounts, they apply then remove credits, they misapply and loose payments. They are completely incompetent. I believe it is half intentional to boost "revenue" and half pure incompetence. Incidentally, I have also found that many of our clients never look at their telecommunications bills. After alerting several of them to take a look at what they were paying, they have disputed and won major credits for years of overbilling by WCom. I NEVER do any business with any WCom company verbally. Everything must be written. Accept NOTHING from a WCom sales person at face value since they all lie and move around frequently to prevent their lies from catching up to them. If they claim a discount will be applied "later" or that another page proves the promo or term discount, it's a lie. Anyway... I say this coming years ago. I'm surprised that they were able to get away with it for as long as they did.
-Robert
Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection
http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211
"Good will, like a good name, is got by many actions, and lost by one." - Francis Jeffrey
I really really shouldn't do this to myself but...
Our UUNet invoice has been correct every month since the T1 circuit was
installed about 8 months ago.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
Also sprach Dan Hollis
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, Cincinnati Bell, ICG,
Adelphia), and l/d (wcom, T, MCI, probably others that I'm forgetting
about).
I've had the same thoughts as another poster that its a ploy to increase
"revenues" (even if they're written off later)...and I actually don't
say that thinking it a joke, I really do seriously think that they do
that to some degree.
Jeff Mcadams wrote:
Also sprach Dan Hollis
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 give details here. And I have seen some fairly major underbilling. YMMV.
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
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 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 EBITDA is the 'D' which seems
to work quite well at hiding losses caused by falling fibre/bandwidth prices!
Steve
Sure will be, the SEC is including that in its investigation.
See:
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/scottmoritz/10030377.html
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 two who have never sent us an incorrect bill. They actually issue credits for outages and their contracts match their bills to the penny. My hat is off to the OSS/Billing people at both of these companies.
I've had the same thoughts as another poster that its a ploy to increase
"revenues" (even if they're written off later)...and I actually don't
say that thinking it a joke, I really do seriously think that they do
that to some degree.
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 doing this on the voice side and WCom on every side. I have no issue with the technical people at these TelCo companies - it's the crooks in charge.
R
Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection
http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211
"Good will, like a good name, is got by many actions, and lost by one." - Francis Jeffrey
: 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
Ok. Maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant was that bills rarely get fixed in the corporate world because the fear of an interruption of service is greater than the desire to fix the bill. I see it all the time with out large institutional clients. The peons in the accounting department don't want to be the responsible for the long distance being shut off because they only paid $0.03 per minute instead of the $.20 per minute which AT&T billed - so... the inflated bills get paid even though they shouldn't. We have caught a few billing mistakes over the years in our clients favor and pro-actively issued credits and they are always blown away when we call to tall them they don't need to pay for x amount of time because they paid an invoice twice or we found that they were being double billed due to a circuit move, etc. They would gladly pay the bill anyway. Once vendor X is approved, the bills are rarely matched against contracts and a list of live services or circuits. Even my company has issues with this and we have a small accounting department and we run a tight ship. I guess what I'm saying is that for all the inflated revenue on their books, they also get some real revenue as a result although it is via what I see as fraud.
-Robert
Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection
http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211
"Good will, like a good name, is got by many actions, and lost by one." - Francis Jeffrey
.. 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 EBITDA is the 'D' which seems
to work quite well at hiding losses caused by falling fibre/bandwidth prices!
From Barrons:
EBITDA = Earnings Before I Tricked the Dumb Auditor
-Hank