leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) (12/15/90)
The Moderator continues to opine that, even if you are "slammed", you still should have to pay for the calls you make, at least at the minimum of the rate charged by your chosen carrier and the one who slammed you. This is wrong. Let's consider a simple analogy: I have a Federal Express envelope that I want delivered overnight. I leave it on top of the nearest FedEx box - assume the box is full, or that what I'm sending doesn't fit inside. I include a billing number for FedEx to charge. You come along, see the envelope, pick it up, and deliver it to its destination; you get it there at least as early as FedEx would have. You now try to bill me for the delivery, at the same rate as FedEx would have. Your claim, of course, is that you provided exactly the same service as FedEx, so are entitled to the same fee. However, the claim is nonsense: I chose to use FedEx, rather than Pat's Delivery, because I have much greater confidence in them. Sure, this time Pat's Delivery got it there safely; but maybe next time Pat will get lost, or get delayed, or hit by a truck. Coverage for the things that might have happened, but didn't, is part of the service that I'm buying from FedEx. Pat's hasn't delivered that service. Now, you can argue that after all the service available from MCI or Sprint is really essentially the equal of that from AT&T. But that's not your argument to make. *I* am the one who has made the choice of services, and I am the one who is entitled to decide the value of the different services to me. Whether my decisions are rational or irrational is of no importance. The service I have contracted for is AT&T's, and no matter what MCI may be able to provide in the way of long-distance connections, they are inherently incapable of BEING AT&T. I owe MCI nothing. Jerry
telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) (12/17/90)
Jerry raises a good point in the message before this one, which if I understand correctly is that by paying the unauthorized carrier of your package or your phone call, you are in effect encouraging them to continue the act of diverting things not intended for themselves. This is only partly correct. There is a third party involved who actually caused the misdelivery, i.e. your local telco. In Jerry's example above, the analogy should be like this: You give a package to an employee and tell them to take it to the 'express office' for shipment. You neglect to say *which* express company, and your employee was under the impression -- because of instructions received at some time or another, or a misunderstanding of your instructions -- that you wanted the package delivered to Pat's Delivery Service instead of Federal Express. So, your employee drops it off at Pat's, and Pat delivers your package in good faith. After all, your package was brought to them by your agent/employee. When you get the bill from Pat, you can't refuse to pay because your employee/agent took the package to the wrong place. Get it straight with your agent/employee instead ... the interstate delivery service did as instructed. When calling long distance, your local telco uses a form of shorthand for your instructions: 1+ will be considered an abbreviation for the 10xxx of your choice until you tell them differently. Somehow or another they get those instructions incorrect. Maybe someone else did legitimatly ask to use Pat, but the telco got the digits transposed on the work order and mistakenly thought you wanted to use Pat. Maybe Pat mistakenly or deliberatly told them you wanted to use his service. If the carrier deliberatly did this, then we have different circumstances than if the local telco did it in error. In the latter case the LD carrier is not at fault and should be paid, and in fact under the law they can force you to pay if necessary by suing you, although it is unlikely one would do so for a few dollars. And although I am not certain, I think if Pat picked up your express package from a common drop off point where all tenants in your building left their express mail, and if precise routing instructions for your package were ambiguous, i.e. a 'generic' freight airbill as opposed to one specifically saying 'Federal Express' that Pat could also sue you to get paid if he took what he believed was an unrouted delivery. The answer lies in forcing the local telco to *confirm* these changes in writing or otherwise rather than by some petty method of withholding fees for services in fact rendered. Patrick Townson
ecl@mtgzy.att.com (Evelyn C Leeper) (12/17/90)
In article <15416@accuvax.nwu.edu>, telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > When calling long distance, your local telco uses a form of shorthand > for your instructions: 1+ will be considered an abbreviation for the > 10xxx of your choice until you tell them differently. Somehow or > another they get those instructions incorrect. Maybe someone else did > legitimatly ask to use Pat, but the telco got the digits transposed on > the work order and mistakenly thought you wanted to use Pat. Maybe Pat > mistakenly or deliberatly told them you wanted to use his service. > If the carrier deliberatly did this, then we have different > circumstances than if the local telco did it in error. In the latter > case the LD carrier is not at fault and should be paid, and in fact > under the law they can force you to pay if necessary by suing you, > although it is unlikely one would do so for a few dollars. No, in the latter case, the local telco can damn well pay the LD carrier. As an example, my parents have AT&T as their LD carrier because I work for AT&T. (Whether this is a good reason is not at issue.) They authorize their local telco to pay AT&T for default LD calls. If their local telco screws up and routes their calls via Sprint, why the hell should my parents have to pay Sprint -- the "competition" -- money for the telco's mistake -- particularly since the telco is a monopoly?! The break-down in the employee analogy is that if the employee screws up enough, you can dump him. You're stuck with your local telco. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com
yazz@prodnet.la.locus.com (Bob Yazz) (12/17/90)
I'm the kind of person who will allow a waiter or waitress's tip in a restaurant to be affected (up or down) by, for example, how good the food tasted (which is the cook's job) rather than isolating just the waitress's actions to guage her tip. A crummy dining experience doesn't put anyone in a generous mood; perhaps I'm more honest than most in my admission. Then again, maybe I'm just an SOB. If I'm ever slammed, I'm NOT paying for a SINGLE second of the stolen calls. If no one else did either, slamming would stop pretty quick. Relevant catch-phrase: "Taking the profit out". Another simple anti-slamming idea is to have all long distance companies announce their name as each call is completed, like AT&T and maybe some others do when credit card calls are placed. Relevant catch-phrase: "Early detection". Bob Yazz -- yazz@lccsd.sd.Locus.com
zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) (12/17/90)
In article <15416@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > This is only partly correct. There is a third party involved who > actually caused the misdelivery, i.e. your local telco. [local telco as employee analogy] > When you get the bill from Pat, you can't refuse to pay because your > employee/agent took the package to the wrong place. Get it straight > with your agent/employee instead ... the interstate delivery service > did as instructed. The problem with this analogy is that the local carrier is _not_ your employee - you are not responsible for its mistakes. If the long distance carrier slammed you without your consent, you owe them nothing. If the local telco switched your carrier without your consent, _they_ should foot the bill. If you ask for carrier X to handle your LD calls, you want the rates and the _service_ of that carrier. Just because Y got the job done does not matter. You wanted X, asked for X, and expected X. Pat
mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally) (12/18/90)
In article <15415@accuvax.nwu.edu>, leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: |> The Moderator continues to opine that, even if you are "slammed", you |> still should have to pay for the calls you make |> This is wrong. . . . I agree with Jerry, primarily on the basis of laws in existance covering un-ordered packages delivered to one's door. If Sears sends me a new refrigerator without my asking for it, my understanding is that I get to store twice as many Tupperware containers full of slowly rotting leftovers and I don't owe them a dime. I don't know why slamming is really any different. I am of course a non-lawyer, and even if I weren't there's in general little relationship between rational lines of thought and what is decided in a civil suit. Mike McNally mcnally@wsl.dec.com [Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number. Granted, it was not delivered by the carrier you thought you had requested to do it, but you did solicit the connection and you did, I assume, benefit from the connection. I think your hassle is with the local telco for making the change without confirming it with you. You can always ensure your call is routed as desired by using the 10xxx codes when dialing. PAT]
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (12/18/90)
Evelyn C Leeper <ecl@mtgzy.att.com> writes: > No, in the latter case, the local telco can damn well pay the LD > carrier. As an example, my parents have AT&T as their LD carrier > because I work for AT&T. Ok, what about this situation (a real one, only the names are changed, etc.)? You are a high-ranking executive with XYZ Enterprises. Your company, which is among other things a long distance carrier, provides your home long distance for you at no charge. You make calls, and you never get the bill. Then one day, you get an MCI bill, either as part of your local statement or a separate bill in the mail. You have been slammed. Now, who owes who what? Do you expect your company to pay the MCI bill when the deal was that IT provided your long distance? Do YOU pay MCI when you expected not to pay for LD at all? Do you pay MCI what you would have expected to pay your selected carrier ($0)? In this case, I would very much expect that the slammee would tell the slammer to take a hike. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
tanner@ki4pv.compu.com (12/18/90)
The employee carrying the package to the express company is an
excellent analogy. Instead of carrying it to Fred Ex, he carrys it to
Pat's express, and now we must decide if we will pay Pat's bill.
Similarly, the local phone co carries my call to the chosen carrier.
If the employee went there at my (possibly unclear) direction, then it
seems that I have very little cause for complaint. Not only did the
package get there, but the service price is ``about'' what I expected,
and Pat may have a cause of action if I fail to pay.
Now, let us examine ``slamming'' : In the best light, someone slides
my employee/agent $5 or local ``change default carrier'' fee to divert
the package to Pat's express without my knowledge, after I have told
that carrier to carry it to Fred Ex. That agent has behaved
corruptly, disregarding my instructions. Should I pay for the
shipping?
We can take a more dim view of the situation. Let us say that Pat is
hard up for business; his only phone line is clogged with complainers
so no one can actually call and order his services. He sends a guy
out with a fake note from me to my agent, saying that I decided that
agent should use Pat's Express instead of Fred Ex. My agent believes
him, and carrys the package to Pat. Now, Pat delivers the package.
Pat has made a fraudlent representation (to my agent) in order to
induce me to (unknowingly) buy his services. Should I pay for the
shipping?
{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tannerstanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) (12/18/90)
mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally) writes: > I agree with Jerry, primarily on the basis of laws in existance > covering un-ordered packages delivered to one's door. If Sears sends > me a new refrigerator without my asking for it, my understanding is > that I get to store twice as many Tupperware containers full of slowly > rotting leftovers and I don't owe them a dime. I don't know why > slamming is really any different. > [Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through > the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the > service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number. > Granted, it was not delivered by the carrier you thought you had > requested to do it, but you did solicit the connection and you did, I So, some wiseguy lives down the street from you, and hears you call Sears on your cordless phone. He calls Sears back and cancels your order with them, and then calls K-Mart and orders a cheap replacement refrigerator to be sent to you. The wiseguy is the, often third party, telemarketer who told your telco to switch service. The piece of junk (not to slam K-Mart, but you ordered the top-of-the-line Sears and got the bottom of the line K-Mart) shows up on your doorstep. It is not as pretty, and it has a shorter warranty, and a shorter mean time between failures, but it keeps just as much food just as cold as the Sears would i.e., this fridge provides the same service as the one you asked for. (The shorter MTBF does not mean this one will break down sooner, just like a high disconnect rate for a carrier does not mean this call will disconnect.) Who do you owe, and how much? 1) You owe K-Mart what you expected to pay Sears. This is the "owe the slammer what you expected to pay to your chosen LD carrier" argument. 2) You owe Sears what you expected to pay. This is the "pay your chosen LD carrier anyway" argument. 3) You owe K-Mart what K-Mart wants you to pay. This is the "telco is your employee argument." 4) You owe nobody anything. This is the "owe nobody anything" argument. The service was provided. The place you wanted to provide the service did not do it, they deserve nothing. You did not ask K-Mart to provide any service, but it did. If you think K-Mart should be paid for providing service you did not ask them to, then please provide me with your address and I will have a refridgerator there tomorrow. You will, of course, pay me what I want for it, even though you did not ask me to send you one. You owe K-Mart the chance to come pick its refridgerator up. That's all. If they choose not to pick it up, or are unable to, you have a free fridge. Yes, you indeed, legally and ethically, benefit from someone elses mistake. You owe the unchosen carrier the chance to retrieve its service. So, which payment option is correct? Only number 4. Now consider if the third party above was a K-Mart employee. How does this change things? K-Mart is now guilty of fraud. Other than that, who you owe for what does not change.
avigross@attmail.att.com (Avi E Gross) (12/19/90)
In article <15454@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Ok, what about this situation (a real one, only the names are changed, > etc.)? You are a high-ranking executive with XYZ Enterprises. Your > company, which is among other things a long distance carrier, provides > your home long distance for you at no charge. You make calls, and you > never get the bill. Then one day, you get an MCI bill, either as part > of your local statement or a separate bill in the mail. You have been > slammed. Actually, this is very close to the truth. As a Bell labs employee, I get reimbursed for the first $35.00 of my long distance phone bill within the continental USA, and half of the next $65.00. So, if I got slammed by another company, I would be asked to pay for something I usually got for free! Since I rarely go over $40.00 per month, I certainly have no motivation to not use AT&T, especially when I find the service to be great. Avi E. Gross @ AT&T LZ 3B-211 (201) 576-3218 attmail!avigross or att!pegasus!avi
heiby@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (Ron Heiby) (12/19/90)
Patrick raises a few good points in pointing out that there's that pesky third party in there. I think he's still missing the central point, though. >package to an employee and tell them to take it to the 'express >office' for shipment. You neglect to say *which* express company, and Ah, but we all chose a particular LD company to be our one + default carrier, so the local operating company *has* been told how to direct our calls. If the LOC uses the wrong LD company, then one of two things happened. 1) They made a mistake. 2) Some LD company slammed the customer. >When you get the bill from Pat, you can't refuse to pay because your >employee/agent took the package to the wrong place. Get it straight >with your agent/employee instead ... the interstate delivery service >did as instructed. Ok, let's examine each of the two possibilities. I say that in case number 1, the LOC owes the LD carrier for the entire amount of the LD calls improperly placed. Routing of my LD calls is part of what I'm paying outrageous monthly sums to the LOC for, anyway. I say that in case number two, the LD carrier shouldn't get paid by anybody. >case the LD carrier is not at fault and should be paid, and in fact >under the law they can force you to pay if necessary by suing you, As I say above, if the LD carrier is not at fault, then the LOC *is*, and it is *they* who should pay for their mistakes. If LD carriers had to eat the cost of their slamming, they would find that it was no longer profitable to slam. If the LD carriers are "victims" of their direct marketing companies, then they should fire those companies that are slamming and seek to recover the lost LD revenues from the slime-balls. If the LOCs had to eat the cost when they made such mistakes, they would quickly figure out how to make fewer such mistakes. Ron Heiby heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com Moderator: comp.newprod
U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (12/19/90)
In article <15415@accuvax.nwu.edu>, leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: > The Moderator continues to opine that, even if you are "slammed", you > still should have to pay for the calls you make, at least at the > minimum of the rate charged by your chosen carrier and the one who > slammed you. Jerry goes on to give an example of why you owe the unauthorized carrier nothing. Legally, in at least English and Australian law, since you have no contract with the unauthorized carrier, they cannot enforce charges for unsolicited services rendered. Perhaps the best way to meet one's "moral obligation" to pay someone for services rendered, and at the same time rile the slammer, is to pay your chosen carrier for the calls and tell the slamming carrier that you have done so. Let the default carrier accept it as a donation, or whatever, but at least you have paid for your calls, to the person you *thought* was providing them, and you don't let the slammer get away with it. What does US law have to say on payment for unsolicited services? Danny u5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (12/19/90)
Does anyone know what the position of the FCC or PUC's is on this issue ? Jeff Sicherman
hughes@maelstrom.Berkeley.EDU (Eric Hughes) (12/19/90)
In article <15456@accuvax.nwu.edu> Pat the Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through > the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the > service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number. This confuses the service as a whole, as a contractable object, and an instance of the fulfillment of that service. You do not solicit service from a company by dialing a phone; you do, however, avail yourself of a previously agreed to service when you so dial. Eric Hughes hughes@ocf.berkeley.edu
news@accuvax.nwu.edu (USENET News System) (12/20/90)
stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes: > So, some wiseguy lives down the street from you, and hears you call >Sears on your cordless phone. He calls Sears back and cancels your >order with them, and then calls K-Mart and orders a cheap replacement >refrigerator to be sent to you. The wiseguy is the, often third party, telemarketer who told your telco to switch service. > Who do you owe, and how much? [...] > 4) You owe nobody anything. This is the "owe nobody anything" argument . > The service was provided. The "service" [i.e. the fridge] was *offered*, and you rejected it (as you were entitled to do because it wasn't what you asked for). Suppose, however, that you had *accepted* the fridge, and used it for its entire useful life (without noticing that it was K-mart). Or suppose, in a restaurant, the waitress delivers the wrong meal, which you consume without complaint. You can no longer reject something as not being what you wanted *after* you've consumed it. > You owe K-Mart the chance to come pick its refridgerator up. [...] >You owe the unchosen carrier the chance to >retrieve its service. You owe the restaurant the opportunity to pump your stomach? You asked for something, you got what appeared to be what you wanted, you consumed it without complaint, and now you won't pay anything for it? You won't even pay what you would have paid if they had served what you ordered? If you were unable to detect that the service wasn't AT&T when you consumed it, what reason do you have to complain now? If you had inadvertedly been served Folger's Crystals when you thought you were getting fresh-brew, how were you injured? A classic case of "pearls before swine." > So, which payment option is correct? Only number 4.
yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) (12/20/90)
> If you were unable to detect that the service wasn't AT&T when >you consumed it, what reason do you have to complain now? The possibility that you might not detect the change, but still not have received equal service, is is not nonexistent. You might have been using a Trailblazer, and getting 30% lower transmission rates on newsfeeds. You might have had to spend more time on a conversation, because of crosstalk, and written it off to the rainy weather. You might have been overheard, because of crosstalk or because of bad security practices on the part of the long distance company.
gauthier@ug.cs.dal.ca (Paul Gauthier) (12/20/90)
> [many people offering parallels from fast food outlets, to refridgerators, > to the Folger's crystals taste test.] Let's assume that when a person places a slammed call that they can not tell the difference between the line quality of the slammer and that of their regular carrier. If they could decisively tell they were being slammed from the line quality they could hang up immediately and avoid all but minimal charges. (How much can the first minute cost you regardless of where and when you call?) All the parallels have assumed that you receive an almost identical product from a company/source other than that which you expected. The point missed in most of these analogies is the most important: The difference in costs. I assume that most people so loathe being slammed because they are getting a better price from their current carrier. These parallels also break down in that when you buy a burger, fridge, etc, you get billed up front and know the cost and the biller's identity BEFORE you can make use of their product. The parallel that is most accurate is the one mentioned in which you go into a restaurant, order a meal, receive one that seems to be what you ordered but costs much more. Say I order a hamburger and actually receive the wonder-super-steak-burger with escargot and truffles on the side. You may simply think "Wow, look at all I got and it was only $2.95 on the menu!" and happily chow down. When you go to pay your bill it rings up at $49.95 and you have a coronary. Almost any reputable restaurant would agree that if you ordered the cheapo-burger you should only pay for the cheapo-burger regardless of what your waitress decided to bring you. While in the case of LD carriers you might not receive a product which is really far superior to what you ordered, the rest of the parallel seems to apply. You should pay for the service at the rates which you expected to pay (those which you ordered) regardless of what the slammer wants to charge you. Who do you pay? The slammer, after all they _did_ provide the service. But _they_ should be willing to pay for any charges above and beyond those incurred for the call such as any costs to switch back to your proper carrier, etc. Since _they_ did incur those costs without your permission. It also seems fair that they should offer you some further compensation for the inconvienience they've caused you. Often times, in the run of a single monthly billing period, this compensation might cancel out the fair price you would have paid for the LD calls; in such cases you would be just in not paying the slammer for their service. Conversely, if you ring up $2,500.00 worth of LD calls while being slammed it is unreasonable to expect the slammer to give them to you as a freebie. Fine, you deserve to pay the price you expected to pay from your normal carrier minus reasonable compensation for your trouble, but chances are that would still leave you in a hefty bit of debt to the slammer. Think of the abuse if someone figured out they were being slammed early in the billing period and then went berzerk calling LD numbers knowing that it was expected that the slammer would have to waive all the charges. Just as an aisde: When ISDN comes in why not have your LCD screen show you which carrier is completing the call for you? Is this possible? Seems like this would close the door on slamming in a big way. Paul Gauthier | tyrant@ug.cs.dal.ca President, Cerebral Computer Technologies | tyrant@dalac.bitnet Phone: (902)462-8217 Fax: (send email first) | tyrant@ac.dal.ca
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (12/21/90)
> [Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through > the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the > service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number. That sounds a *lot* like that particular perversion of contract law, the infamous shrink-wrap license. What's the latest on the validity of shrink wrap licenses? Peter da Silva +1 713 274 5180 peter@ferranti.com
gordon@utacfd.utarl.edu (Gordon Burditt) (12/21/90)
>When calling long distance, your local telco uses a form of shorthand >for your instructions: 1+ will be considered an abbreviation for the >10xxx of your choice until you tell them differently. Somehow or >another they get those instructions incorrect. Maybe someone else did >legitimatly ask to use Pat, but the telco got the digits transposed on >the work order and mistakenly thought you wanted to use Pat. Maybe Pat >mistakenly or deliberatly told them you wanted to use his service. What would it take to slam, say, 10288, over a large area (say, all of Pac*Bell territory) to route to the carrier normally specified as 10976 (International Pornophone and Pornograph - even 0, 411, 611, and 911 act like a 900 number)? for a major fraction of a month? Would this, done in a fairly simple way, also take everyone with AT&T as a default with it? (If the default carrier is stored as '288', it probably would). Do you still think I have to pay IPP for phone calls dialed with 10288 (assume that somehow I could prove it) but I got IPP instead of AT&T? Technically, how difficult would it be for a local phone company to do this by accident? How difficult would it be for an outsider employed by IPP to do this remotely from, say, West Germany, assuming somehow he managed to bribe someone for necessary numbers and access codes? How about using a midnight visit to a few (not all) CO's in the area? How about a carefully forged memo or piece of code supposedly from someone at PacBell or Bellcore? If local phone companies are so easily taken in by outsiders changing default carriers, they probably can be talked into re-arranging carrier codes by outsiders, too. I suspect that at least two weeks would pass before any customers got past Standard Customer Service Excuse #487 and any technical people would start investigating unauthorized programming changes. Part of that would be the delay before anyone got their bills and noticed the difference. >The answer lies in forcing the local telco to *confirm* these changes >in writing or otherwise rather than by some petty method of >withholding fees for services in fact rendered. The answer lies in requiring the local telco to accept change requests from the subscriber, only the subscriber, and no intermediaries claiming to act for the subscriber (allowance may be made for the legal representative with power of attorney to act for someone incompetent). AND they should confirm the changes. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) (12/25/90)
While it's not a total solution, here's something that Pacific Bell is doing that should minimize calls to a "slamming" carrier: They now send a confirmantion notice to you right away for all changes to your service. You generally get the notice two or three days after the change. It is sent for any type of change, from equal access carrier change, custom calling feature change, calling card order, etc. So at least you don't have to wait to be shocked by the bill a month later.