Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU From: Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Newsgroups: comp.sys.misc Subject: Byte Magazine flame from FIDOnet Message-ID: <22c1ccc2@ralf> Date: 24 Jun 88 03:30:10 GMT Sender: netnews@pt.cs.cmu.edu Lines: 96 From: Matthew Franckiewicz To: All Msg #86, 21-Jun-88 02:38pm Subject: Byte4 FLAME ON AGAIN For the benefit of those of you who missed previous episodes of this soap opera: In late 1987, I subscribed to Byte Magazine. I sent them a check for a two year subscription. Although they cashed my check, they sent me a dunning letter, and a "Notice of Cancellation". I responded to both with notes saying that I had paid the bill. I have yet to be graced by a response to either of my notes. When my bank statement arrived, indicating that my check was cancelled before the subscription was, I called their customer service (ha!) number. I related the situation, and requested a refund. The customer service (ha!) representative promised to send one. Nothing happened, and I telephoned the customer service (ha!) number again on March 10. During an interminable conversation with an alleged person, I stated, iterated and reiterated the facts. Again I received a promise of a refund, supposedly to arrive in about 5 weeks. Subsequently, Byte began arriving. By this time, I did not want the magazine, and regarded its arrival as an insult. OK, now for the news. Of course, the promise of the customer service (ha!) representative was, once again, not kept. I telephoned again on April 27, and spoke with a different customer service (ha!) representative, in this case one who was probably smarter than the average turnip. She told me that from what she could see, nothing at all had happened regarding my refund. She said she would initiate the process, but was not optimistic. I thereupon wrote a letter to the president of McGraw Hill, on my legal letterhead, setting forth the facts. He responded with a letter saying he was directing someone to investigate, and that someone would contact me within one week. This was one promise from McGraw-Hill which was almost kept. I received a subsequent letter, dated 7 days after the previous letter, but postmarked 10 days after the previous letter. This second letter did not reach me until substantially later, however, perhaps because of the address on the envelope, which I reproduce verbatim below: Mr. Matthew M. Franckiewicz Attorney at Law 902 Lincoln Highway North Versailles, PA 15137 1000 East Main St. Plainfield, Indiana 46168 (Are these guys the gang that can't shoot straight, or what?) (Continued next message.) ... ...-.... --- ConfMail V3.31 * Origin: NEVERBOARD Pittsburgh [Alternet 522/2] [DR_DEBUG HUB] (1:129/18) From: Matthew Franckiewicz To: All Msg #87, 21-Jun-88 02:39pm Subject: Byte5 This second letter promised a refund, and said that I should receive it within 10 days. Imagine my lack of surprise when no refund arrived. After about 3 weeks had passed, I telephoned the sender of the second letter (yes, collect, of course). I was told that he was not there. The following week he returned my call, leaving a message on my answering machine. I called him again at about 2:30 p.m. (same time zone) and was told he was out to lunch. (While this may explain a lot about the nature of the problem, I strain to resist the temptation to say something obvious.) I left another message, but he has never replied to it, and I doubt he ever will. Yesterday, June 13, merely a month and 3 days after the letter which promised a refund within 10 days, a check arrived. The check was dated June 9. I have not yet attempted to cash this check, and when I do take it to the bank, I will do so with some trepidation. In summary, it took me five telephone calls, two notes, a letter on my legal stationery, about four hours of my time, and nearly six months, to induce Byte Magazine and/or McGraw-Hill to provide restitution for their error. If you are considering a subscription to Byte, you must ask yourself whether you are willing to risk being subjected to the same treatment I received. (And if you are not a lawyer, perhaps you may risk even worse treatment.) Moreover, where an organization cannot accurately state what it is going to do, can you believe its statements about what a piece of hardware of software is going to do? --- ConfMail V3.31 * Origin: NEVERBOARD Pittsburgh [Alternet 522/2] [DR_DEBUG HUB] (1:129/18) -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I | claimed something?| Insert your favorite quote here