davidb@pacer.uucp (David Barts) (10/15/90)
carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com (Carol Springs) writes: > ...[list of MCI proposed anti-slamming practices]... MCI forgot: o If any customer claims he or she has been "slammed" and there is no written documentation of the customer's approval of the change, the customer's word is taken to be correct, the customer is switched back to his original LD carrier AT THE SLAMMER'S EXPENSE, and THE CUSTOMER IS NOT CHARGED IN ANY WAY FOR LD SERVICE FURNISHED DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME THE SLAMMING WAS IN EFFECT. The unsolicited service is considered to be a free gift to the customer. *That* would stop the practice of slamming in a hurry. It would also make carriers get written verification, which just goes to show the superiority of ATT's plan. If the mail carrier brings a Ronco Spit-o-Matic prune pitter to my doorstep, along with a bill that says "Please remit $49.95", and I did not order any prune pitters from Ronco, I can consider this to be a FREE GIFT and throw the bill in the wastebasket, where it belongs. There is no reason why an LD carrier should be considered different in this respect. If I don't order something, I shouldn't have to pay for it. Period. > Guess MCI is looking for a new reputation as consumer advocate. With advocacy like that, who need adversaries? Trusting MCI to come up with a meaningful set of anti-slamming procedures is like trusting Saddam Hussein to come up with a meaningful plan for Mideast peace. David Barts Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb
bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker) (10/18/90)
In article <13585@accuvax.nwu.edu>, davidb@pacer.uucp (David Barts) writes: > o If any customer claims he or she has been "slammed" and there is no > written documentation of the customer's approval of the change, the > customer's word is taken to be correct, the customer is switched back > to his original LD carrier AT THE SLAMMER'S EXPENSE, and THE CUSTOMER LD carriers are currently required to obtain written permission from the subscriber to change the LD carrier. AT&T did NOT request that an already-existing regulation be passed anew; they proposed that the regulation be more strictly and universally enforced. The alternate carriers object to stricter enforcement, because of the alleged difficulty in getting customers to send back the signature card. > IS NOT CHARGED IN ANY WAY FOR LD SERVICE FURNISHED DURING THE PERIOD > OF TIME THE SLAMMING WAS IN EFFECT. The unsolicited service is > considered to be a free gift to the customer. This would be an interesting new twist, and probably justifiable based on your Ronco Spit-o-Matic analogy. If you didn't request the service or product, you don't pay the bill. JB [Moderator's Note: Except some legal beagles contend that by lifting the phone receiver and dialing the desired digits you were in fact requesting or soliciting the service. By failing to dial the 10xxx code on the front, you are requesting the service from the 'default' carrier, which might not be the carrier you want. To insure you get the one you want, you can always dial 10xxx. So, the legal beagles say you can sue the carrier who wrongfully took over the default on your line, but they in turn can sue you for not paying for the calls they handled for you. I guess it washes out. PAT]
dnewman@mcc.com (David Newman) (10/21/90)
Yesterday I got a call from MCI. He begain his solicitation, and I interrupted to say "I have ATT, and I don't want to switch thank you." The salesman tried to continue his spiel. I said: "As I said, I don't want to switch, and furthermore, I don't want to be slammed." He asked what slamming was (come on!), and replied that for him to change my carrier, I would have to recieve *three* phone calls, and provide my social security number. A couple of questions: 1) Was he giving me the run-around? Three phone calls to verify the change seems quite odd. I thought that the net-consensus was that there would be one call-back, not two. 2) IF he was telling the truth, why does the phone company have my SSN? This also seems odd to me. 3) Finally, it doesn't seem too likely that he didn't know what "slamming" was: is this term used widely as it is here on the TELECOM Digest, or is it a bit of jargon that we have picked up by reading the Digest? I found it incredibly annoying that the guy just refused to take NO for an answer. The conversation continued beyond the portion that I have reported, and I finally had to just hang up on the guy - he would not end the conversation and go away. It is interesting that they would violate the normal "ettiquette" of telephone behavior in this way, and yet another reason to avoid subscribing to their service, in my (twisted and unusual) opinion. Dave