0003829147@mcimail.com (Sander J. Rabinowitz) (09/16/90)
John Higdon of Green Hills and Cows <john@bovine.ati.com> quoted an article regarding MCI's apparent practice of becoming the primary long-distance carrier without the customer's consent. He concluded the article by saying: >From all accounts MCI does seem to be the slamming king. I have, >on several occasions, had to "clean off" MCI as the default carrier >on some of my clients' trunks. Associates of mine report the same ... I had a similar experience with MCI. For a time, I was making a number of long-distance calls from my parent's phone line, so I established an account with MCI where my parents would continue to have AT&T as their primary carrier, but 10222+ calls would be billed to me directly (and NOT on my parent's bill). One day I got a notice saying they would start billing those calls through Michigan Bell ("For my convenience," it was claimed), and so I called their customer service to explain my situation and to see if I could still get direct billing. Soon after that, my parent's bill showed a $5.00 charge for an MCI switchover. (They were NOT thrilled.) I promptly called MCI, where they immediately credited my account (without haggle) for $10, to cover the original switchover, plus the switch back to AT&T. Since then, I've had my own line installed, where AT&T is the primary carrier. (Note: That I was going to do anyway.) But because I still have an MCI Card account with them, I dial the 700-555-4141 test number for BOTH lines on a weekly basis, to ensure that there aren't any additional arbitrary switchovers. Given John's latest account of MCI practices--- > What a slimepit! --- the extra caution is not without merit. Sander J. Rabinowitz | 0003829147@mcimail.com Farmington Hills, Mich. | +1 313 478 6358
v116kznd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Dave Archer) (09/17/90)
In article <12195@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0003829147@mcimail.com (Sander J. Rabinowitz) writes... >>From all accounts MCI does seem to be the slamming king. I have, >>on several occasions, had to "clean off" MCI as the default carrier >>on some of my clients' trunks. Associates of mine report the same ... I've wondered if any of this has anything to do with telemarketers hired by the LD companies imposing quotas on their employees. Such as, "if you don't get 10 people an hour to switch over, you're out of a job". This might explain alot. And as far as MCI, it could just be they don't keep as close a watch on their telemarketers as the other companys do. BTW, I've not had any problems with MCI bothering me. In fact, the only time I remember MCI calling me, I could barely understand the person with all the static and buzzing and such. Sounded more like the call was coming from the moon during solar flare season. Not exactly very impressive. This was several years ago however, I would assume things are better, or at least hope that they don't call from the moon anymore. :) (I have however, had two people from AAA drive over and insist that I had ordered a membership while I very much recalled having told the telemarketer a month earlier that I wasn't interested, although I still have no idea how they knew my liscense plate number.) Note: I do not represent my employer or school, & sometimes not even myself. Dave Archer | Internet: V116KZND@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU | Bitnet: V116KZND@UBVMS.BITNET
dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) (09/18/90)
John Higdon wrote in volume 10, issue 643: | So how 'bout it? From all accounts MCI does seem to be the slamming | king. I have, on several occasions, had to "clean off" MCI as the | default carrier on some of my clients' trunks. Associates of mine | report the same. So while Sprint is exhorting potential customers to | switch from AT&T, MCI is doing it for them whether they like it or | not. Last autumn I regaled the Digest's readership with the story of how MCI slammed my parents and tried to slam me. I opened a 10XXX-only account with them and put my two lines and their two lines on it. Some overeager clerk decided to code it for 1+ service and they kept trying to switch us. [For details, consult Digests in volume 9.] My parents' telco is Illinois Bell; they dutifully obeyed MCI's order ("Yes, it was MCI who told us, not you, but they wouldn't lie.") and switched my parents' 1+ to MCI and charged them $5.00 per line for the honor. Central Telephone, on the other hand, called me to confirm (and called again when MCI told them again) and I said no, no way, I'm sticking with Telecom*USA, and I'll be the one to say so if there are to be any changes. IBT got earfuls from my mother and from me and switched my parents' lines back to AT&T, credited them for the fee for the first switch to MCI, and didn't charge for returning them to AT&T. Centel told me they fully understood my position and that that was why they had a policy of checking with the customer rather than acting on a third party's greed, so they never had to make any changes, undo any changes already made, or bill and credit any charges. In our case it was the IEC's own sleaziness; frequently, an IEC hires some marketing firm, who dutifully report that 100% of all customers called are eager, eager, eager to switch, and no one at the IEC, since they have the marketer's report to get them out of trouble ("We didn't lie to your telco! It was the marketer who lied to us, see?"), is willing to admit that the results are a bit hard to believe. The IEC then cheerily repeats the marketer's lies to the telqi. The telqi could learn not to listen to the IEC's but only to the customers, and that would instantly end slamming, though I feel that it's the IEC's who should be held responsible when it occurs. Still, I notice the difference between the two telqi: the BOC decides that a colleague in the industry knows what is best for the customer, but the independent is interested in what the customer wants. On the other hand, the sales rep at Cable & Wireless told me that if I decide to switch, she will three-way with me and Central Telephone at C&W's expense so that all three parties will know that the transaction is on the up-and-up. I wonder whether they learned from other IECs' experiences or their own. (One of C&W's requirements is that at least one number on the account have them as primary carrier, so the policy might also stem from their own interest in seeing that the customer follows through on a promise to notify the telco to switch the line.) On another note, in volume 10, issue 644 (the real one), Jerry Altzman quoted an old OGM of his: | "Hello, this is the law offices of Hillel and Shammai. Please leave | your name, number and brief message at the beep. These are the words | of Hillel. Shammai says, leave your message first, and then your name | and number, but both are the words of the living God." | (Hillel and Shammai were Rabbis who almost always disagreed.) That doesn't sit right. Shammai would never say to leave your message first and then your name, making the recipient rely on the hope of recognizing your voice to know how to interpret the message (the same words, such as references to children and spouses and employers, will mean different things from different people). No, Shammai would have said to leave your name first, then your number to complete the frame of reference and background information, and then your message. Hillel would have said, since messages are easier to remember than telephone numbers, leave your name first, then your message, and then a number at which you can be reached LAST so that it will be freshest in the listener's memory, unobscured by surprises in the message, in case the listener wishes to dial right away or cannot write it down. But this is valid, and that is valid. Follow-ups on the Hillel/Shammai answering machine debate to soc.- culture.jewish, but wait until Chol Hammo`ed Sukkoth so that people will be in a Simchat Torah mood. Shnat brakhah v'hatzlachah. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com Moderator's Note: Holiday greetings to you, David, and our other Jewish participants on the net. PAT]
bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker) (09/19/90)
In article <12217@accuvax.nwu.edu>, v116kznd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Dave Archer) writes: > I've wondered if any of this has anything to do with telemarketers > hired by the LD companies imposing quotas on their employees. Such > as, "if you don't get 10 people an hour to switch over, you're out of > a job". This might explain alot. And as far as MCI, it could just be > they don't keep as close a watch on their telemarketers as the other > companys do. According to the WSJ report, MCI was not using outside telemarketers; the agents were employees of MCI. Quotas were imposed by MCI HQ. Unfortunately, the persons responsible for monitoring the marketers and reporting such behavior were working for the same management responsible for the quotas. The tactic was directed primarily at the elderly, hard-of-hearing, and non-english speaking victims. Although MCI led the pack in slamming complaints (both to FCC, and to local telops), Sprint was not far behind, and a few complaints were registered against AT&T as well. The practice is growing to epidemic proportions, and is becoming a major concern for the telops. It costs them time/money to deal with the flood of customer complaint, of a problem which they can legally do nothing to stop. It would also be expensive if all default-carrier conversions were accompanied by paperwork which had to be processed by the telop. They seem to be stuck in a no-win situation. Perhaps AT&T's lawsuit will deter the practice in the future. MCI HQ claims to be making management and policy changes, and increased efforts to monitor/stop slamming by their telemarketers. JB
nam2254%dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil@dsac.dla.mil (Tom Ohmer) (09/19/90)
From article <12195@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by 0003829147@mcimail.com
(Sander J. Rabinowitz):
< I had a similar experience with MCI. For a time, I was making a
So did I. My apartment-mate got involved in that pyramid company from
Michigan ;-). They had a `deal' of some kind for him to use MCI. I
found out about it by accident (apartment-mate never mentioned that he
was changing the LD carrier on *MY* phone.).
I was calling Florida collect and got an answering machine, so I told
the operator "never mind." She said "Thanks for using MCI." No big
surprise here, I figured MCI was the called party's carrier, since the
call was collect. Then I called back direct to leave a message on the
machine and got another MCI thank you. Wait a minute! This isn't
right.
I called MCI Customer `Service' and they told me I had requested the
switch. "No, I did not." "Aren't you <so-and-so>?" "No."
Apartment-mate even used own name when changing my service. Anyway,
after several calls to Ohio Bell, AT&T, and MCI, everything is better
now. I haven't said anything to apartment-mate and likewise. I'm
waiting to see. ;-)
< they immediately credited my account (without haggle) for $10, to cover
< the original switchover, plus the switch back to AT&T.
Pleasantly surprisingly did the same for me. Do they do this so often
that it is handled so casually?
< Given John's latest account of MCI practices---
<< What a slimepit!
< --- the extra caution is not without merit.
Oh, yeah, I had OBT put a flag on my account allowing future changes
in my service to be made by me in writing ONLY.
Tom Ohmer @ Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center,
DSAC-AMB, Bldg. 27-6, P.O. Box 1605, Columbus, OH 43216-5002
UUCP: ...osu-cis!dsac!tohmer INTERNET: tohmer@dsac.dla.mil
Phone: (614) 238-8059 AutoVoN: 850-8059 Disclaimer claimeddattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) (09/22/90)
Tom Ohmer [O] and Chris Johnson [J] wrote in volume 10, issue 659: O> My apartment-mate got involved in that pyramid company from O> Michigan. They had a `deal' of some kind for him to use MCI. I O> found out about it by accident (apartment-mate never mentioned that O> he was changing the LD carrier on *MY* phone.). O> I called MCI Customer `Service' and they told me I had requested O> the switch. "No, I did not." "Aren't you <so-and-so>?" "No." O> Apartment-mate even used own name when changing my service. Anyway, O> after several calls to Ohio Bell, AT&T, and MCI, everything is better O> now. I haven't said anything to apartment-mate and likewise. I'm O> waiting to see. ;-) Robert Michael Gutierrez is the local expert on these matters, but I'll venture a theory: Tom's apartment-mate wanted MCI 1+ on his own line but 10222 access to his own MCI account if he should need to place a long-distance call from Tom's line, so he gave MCI both phone numbers with explicit instructions that his was to get primary service but Tom's was to get secondary service. However, once Tom's number gets listed on an account where at least one number has 1+ service, MCI's conveniently poor customer service software thinks all numbers whose MCI accesses are on that account should have MCI as primary carrier. That was one of the explanations given me about their slamming my parents and attempting to slam me; however, Tom Ohmer's apartment-mate really *did* want MCI 1+ on his own line. Neither my parents nor I wanted MCI as primary carrier, but some overeager MCI rep decided to score points by coding my account that way. Result: points possibly scored by rep with bosses, many points lost by MCI with me. When Telecom*USA loses its autonomy and I get MCI service instead, they'll lose me as a 1+ customer. J> A few years ago, MCI changed my dial 1+ long distance service from J> AT&T (my selection) to themselves, against my wishes. After some J> wrangling, and about a year or so, they finally credited my local J> phone co. account (U.S. West) with the change order service fees. J> The other day, I received a letter in the mail from MCI saying welcome J> to MCI's 1+ service. Wait, I thought, didn't I speak to an MCI J> telemarketer a month or so ago, asked to speak with their supervisor, J> and explicitly told him NOT TO CHANGE ONE THING? Yes, in fact I did. J> So I dialed the 700-555-4141 number to see who my long distance J> carrier really was, and lo-and-behold, it said MCI. J> Those jerks told U.S. West to change my service from AT&T to MCI J> again, without my permission. Can you tell that I'm annoyed? Ohio Bell accepts MCI's slam on Tom Ohmer, US West Communications accepts it on Chris Johnson, Illinois Bell accepts it on my parents, NJ Bell and Pac*Bell let IEC's slam other readers and their acquain- tances: as I said before, BOC's believe a comrade-in-arms knows what's best for the customer and accept a slammer's word, but independent telqi can grasp the concept that customers have some intelligence of their own and can make their own decisions. It's enough to make me pity the Illinois Bell customers I see out my window. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com
gutierre@noc.arc.nasa.gov (Robert Michael Gutierrez) (09/23/90)
dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: |> Tom Ohmer [O] and Chris Johnson [J] wrote in volume 10, issue 659: |> O> My apartment-mate got involved in that pyramid company from |> O> Michigan. They had a `deal' of some kind for him to use MCI. I |> O> found out about it by accident... |> O> I called MCI Customer `Service' and they told me I had requested |> O> the switch. "No, I did not." "Aren't you <so-and-so>?" "No." |> Robert Michael Gutierrez is the local expert on these matters, but |> I'll venture a theory: Tom's apartment-mate wanted MCI 1+ on his own |> line but 10222 access to his own MCI account if he should need to |> place a long-distance call from Tom's line,.... I agree with this theory, but unfortunately, there are a number of customer service reps who don't know how to implement this theory. All customer service reps are trained in a two week class, and in that two week class, about one semester's worth of Telecomm 101 is shoved down their throat, and three days is left to use the CICS-VS system MCI uses on their IBM 3090's. (The specific CICS system was named OCIS [On-Line Customer Information System]). Even for me, coming from a totally different computing environment and never having used an IBM 3270 terminal, it was difficult (I caught on the telecomm part real easily). Let's face it, customer service is there for one purpose only in any industry, to hold people's hands. Comprehensive training to use the equipment is secondary. Most of the customer service new-hires always end up getting trained by their next-door cubicle neighbors, not in the training class. And the new-hire, with 30+ calls on hold, isn't going to go run off to find his/her manager or "group leader" for something he or she does not understand. He or she is going to take a guess. Personally, I'd ask the rep how long they have been working there. Over three months would be a minimum. Six months to one year is preferable. Over one year is considered an "old-timer", and is rare in their Customer Service Department. |> J> A few years ago, MCI changed my dial 1+ long distance service from |> J> AT&T (my selection) to themselves, against my wishes.... |> J> The other day, I received a letter in the mail from MCI saying welcome |> J> to MCI's 1+ service. Wait, I thought, didn't I speak to an MCI |> J> telemarketer a month or so ago, asked to speak with their supervisor, |> J> and explicitly told him NOT TO CHANGE ONE THING? Yes, in fact I did. |> J> Those jerks told U.S. West to change my service from AT&T to MCI |> J> again, without my permission. Can you tell that I'm annoyed? |> Ohio Bell accepts MCI's slam on Tom Ohmer, US West Communications |> accepts it on Chris Johnson, Illinois Bell accepts it on my parents, |> NJ Bell and Pac*Bell let IEC's slam other readers and their acquain- |> tances:.... [etc] All done on mag tape. Nameless and faceless. No amount of "tag my LEC account *never* to accept changes from an IEC (L.D. Company) concerning my PIC (Primary Interexchange Carrier, or L.D. company)" wil ever help anybody in the U.S. of A. All that is done is a "note" is entered on your account ... three whole lines that a rep can enter into your account ... anything can be entered (like "Customer is a 5150"* [see note below]) etc ... but the computer could care less about those notes. It still will merrily process the PIC change off the mag tape. Computers out of control: This should be a comp.risks issue, really. A telemarketer sets off a chain of computer events that is vurtually unstoppable. Only the hapless customers get to clear the aftermath ... or at least try. Robert Michael Gutierrez Office of Space Science and Applications, NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center. Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. (Footnote: "5150" is the Welfare and Institutions code that gives the State of California power to incarcerate anybody found to "mentally unstable", and is the official California Highway Patrol code for "Mental Case". "5150" designations were used liberally at MCI at one period in time until they got nervous about it.)
david@uunet.uu.net> (09/24/90)
gutierre@noc.arc.nasa.gov (Robert Michael Gutierrez) writes: >Computers out of control: >This should be a comp.risks issue, really. A telemarketer sets off a >chain of computer events that is vurtually unstoppable. Only the >hapless customers get to clear the aftermath ... or at least try. This is beginning to sound like John Brunner's "The Shockwave Rider" where with a single call a malicious person could stop your phone service (and your credit) until you somehow managed to get the tapeworm killed. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au
David Tamkin <dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com> (09/24/90)
Robert Michael Gutierrez wrote in volume 10, issue 669: | All [PIC change orders are] done on mag tape. Nameless and faceless. | No amount of "tag my LEC account *never* to accept changes from an IEC | concerning my PIC" will ever help anybody in the U.S. of A. All that is | done is a "note" is entered on your account ... three whole lines that | a rep can enter into your account ... anything can be entered, ... but | the computer could [not] care less about those notes. It still will | merrily process the PIC change off the mag tape. But there are telqi who will accept with blind faith the mag tapes that the IECs send them, input them, and slam away, and there are telqi who will examine the data on those tapes and check records first to see if they have received such a request from the customer. No, it shouldn't be necessary for telqi to protect customers from slamming IECs, but it says a lot about a telco to find out whose side it is on and whose word it takes over whose. It appears so far that one good indicator is the answer to this question: "Who was your corporate parent at the close of business on Friday, December 30, 1983?" David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com
seals@uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals) (09/25/90)
An MCI rep called my missus while I was out and about and asked if we were interested in switching to their service to which she replied with an emphatic NO! The rep continued with my wife getting more irate by the second. She finally told this person that we had AT&T and were more than happy with the service (we do very little out of state calling, even less in-state LD) and got off the line. Upon arriving home she told me the story and I related to her the info I have gleaned here (thank you very much :-) ) about slamming. We called AT&T (glory be! They had a live person manning the 800 number at 8:30pm EST) and explained the situation. The AT&T rep verified that MCI could change our LD carrier without our consent and that we should contact our local telco. We called Southern Bell the next morning and had our account flagged so that no changes could be made without written permission. Nuff said. Or so I thought. When September's bill came in, it appeared that MCI had somehow beaten us to the punch :-( but AT&T (or Southern Bell) had switched us back (credit issued for a 6 day period in August) and had covered the switch back charge. So, whatever anyone else says, I'm sticking to AT&T for no other reason than the quality of the service (their rep even apologized for the MCI phone call!) and the promptness of their staff.
bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker) (09/25/90)
In article <12517@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: > But there are telqi who will accept with blind faith the mag tapes > that the IECs send them, input them, and slam away, and there are > telqi who will examine the data on those tapes and check records first > to see if they have received such a request from the customer. Name one. From everything I've read/heard/experienced, no telco verifies the allegedly-required written record except in cases of customer complaint. And, MCI rarely produces the written record, claiming that they 'sent the card out to the customer for signature, but never got it back'.
npl@mozart.att.com (Nickolas Landsberg) (09/26/90)
Regarding the slamming situation: Whenever I get called by <name your least favorite here>, I reply that I am an AT&T employee. It gets them off the line FAST, and I've never been slammed (yet). Of course, in my case it's the truth. Your mileage may vary. Cheers, Nick Landsberg
ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) (09/26/90)
Some months ago, I received a call from a telemarketing company trying to sell me an "affinity" MasterCard, endorsed by and bearing the logo and colours of a a good cause that I support. I decided to get the card, and at the end of the application processor, the telemarketing person passed me on to a woman he identified as his supervisor, who confirmed that I indeed wanted the affinity MasterCard, and made sure I understood how it worked. Perhaps the "slamming" abuses people have described here would not happen so often if MCI and its telemarketing contractors were required to have requests to make MCI the 1+ carrier verified by a second person who was paid a flat hourly or weekly wage which does not have anything to do with sales results. This would go a long way towards keeping telemarketers honest. Nigel Allen telephone (416) 535-8916 52 Manchester Avenue fax (416) 978-7552 Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3 Canada
dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) (09/28/90)
After I had previously written this: DT> But there are telqi who will accept with blind faith the mag tapes DT> that the IECs send them, input them, and slam away, and there are DT> telqi who will examine the data on those tapes and check records first DT> to see if they have received such a request from the customer. Jon Baker challenged me in volume 10, issue 681: JB> Name one. From everything I've read/heard/experienced, no telco JB> verifies the allegedly-required written record except in cases of JB> customer complaint. And, MCI rarely produces the written record, JB> claiming that they 'sent the card out to the customer for signature, JB> but never got it back'. In a tale I've told many times here, MCI tried several times to slam my parents' Illinois Bell service and my Central Telephone service. Central Telephone never honored MCI's mag tape but phoned me for confirmation both times. Both times, of course, I denied it, and on neither occasion did they make the switch. So you want me to name one? Central Telephone Company, 2004 Miner Street, Des Plaines, Illinois 60016; +1 708 391 6000. In every slamming complaint posted to this Digest that named the obeying telco, said compliant local utility was a Bell company. No one has yet, as far as I've noticed, submitted "my independent telco let a long- distance carrier slam me" nor "my Bell telco stymied a slamming attempt on me." David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com
JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet (09/28/90)
>Some months ago, I received a call from a telemarketing company trying >to sell me an "affinity" MasterCard, endorsed by and bearing the logo >and colours of a a good cause that I support. I decided to get the >card, and at the end of the application processor, the telemarketing >person passed me on to a woman he identified as his supervisor, who >confirmed that I indeed wanted the affinity MasterCard, and made sure >I understood how it worked. >Perhaps the "slamming" abuses people have described here would not >happen so often if MCI and its telemarketing contractors were required >to have requests to make MCI the 1+ carrier verified by a second >person who was paid a flat hourly or weekly wage which does not have >anything to do with sales results. This would go a long way towards >keeping telemarketers honest. I suspect this scenario has more to do with the laws regulating credit cards, the banks liability for fraudulent use or misissuance, and the consequent liabilities that may be passed on to the marketers by them. The costs, losses, and laws regulating the phone industry may not make it worthwhile (in fact the opposite, apparently) or necessary. If everyone is so incensed at what is purported to be widespread slamming by MCI, why hasn't someone considered a class-action suit. There obviously wouldn't be much money in compensatory damages but there might be something in punitive damages (don't challenge me on legalities - I admit ignorance). More important, just the rumor (properly leaked) of such a thought, solicitation, or evidence gathering might get their attention, the attention of the press, or the regulatory agencies. Bad publicity is worth a million complaints. Just out of curiosity (and to show I have no personal interest in this), how come I have never been slammed, given that I live in what is claimed to be the telemarketing fraud captial of the U.S. - Orange County, California. Jeff Sicherman jajz801@calstate.bitnet P.S. I am NOT volunteering to coordinate such an activity, I will ignore all material sent to me on the matter. I am merely stirring the pot and accept no responsibility for it boiling over or spilling.
friedl@mtndew.tustin.ca.us (Steve Friedl) (09/28/90)
Nickolas Landsberg (an AT&T employee) writes: > Regarding the slamming situation: Whenever I get called by <name your > least favorite here>, I reply that I am an AT&T employee. I have found this to be an excellent way to disarm most telemarketers. I used to flame at them (MCI especially) but eventually got tired of being so confrontational. Now, when I get a call from some phone company or newspaper, I just politely say that I work for the competition. The caller always thanks me for my time with a bit of a chuckle and it makes for a very fast exchange. If this catches on it could make for some fun meetings at Sprint telemarketing HQ: "Dammit, 50% of the people we call work for AT&T. How can this happen?" It is also funny to think about MCI calling John Higdon and having him tell them he works for Sprint :-) Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / I speak for me only / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy +1 714 544 6561 / friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl
trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead) (09/29/90)
dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: [concerning slamming] >In every slamming complaint posted to this Digest that named the >obeying telco, said compliant local utility was a Bell company. >No one has yet, as far as I've noticed, submitted "my independent >telco let a long distance carrier slam me" nor "my Bell telco >stymied a slamming attempt on me." Is it just paranoid moi, or do other people notice that since the slamming company is the one who gets the bad PR, not the local utility, and since we all know who the BOC's don't particulary love Sprint, MCI, et al, it follows that the BOC's have no incentive to check before they allow a slam? Nahhh! Silly me! ;^) Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor trebor@biar.UUCP
dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) (10/01/90)
I had written this: DWT> No one has yet, as far as I've noticed, submitted "my independent DWT> telco let a long distance carrier slam me" nor "my Bell telco DWT> stymied a slamming attempt on me." Robert Woodhead replied in volume 10, issue 698: RJW> Is it just paranoid moi, or do other people notice that since the RJW> slamming company is the one who gets the bad PR, not the local RJW> utility, and since we all know who the BOC's don't particulary love RJW> Sprint, MCI, et al, it follows that the BOC's have no incentive to RJW> check before they allow a slam? No, it doesn't follow. The BOC could get more PR mileage out of calling the customer to confirm and not only making the would-be slamming IEC out to be the villain but also declaring itself savior of the day. "See, we're here to serve *you*, not *them*." In par- ticular, if they are in bed with AT&T (and let's face it, there is a lot of overlapping stock ownership), by thwarting a slam on an AT&T customer, they would make sure the customer's long-distance business stays with AT&T straight through. Speaking of the word *them*, what does the readership think of MCI's new round of get-back-at-AT&T commercials? They really go for the jugular, don't they? David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com
trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead) (10/02/90)
dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: [in response to my conspiracy theories about why the BOC lets slamming happen] >No, it doesn't follow. The BOC could get more PR mileage out of >calling the customer to confirm and not only making the would-be >slamming IEC out to be the villain but also declaring itself savior of >the day. "See, we're here to serve *you*, not *them*." In par- >ticular, if they are in bed with AT&T (and let's face it, there is a >lot of overlapping stock ownership), by thwarting a slam on an AT&T >customer, they would make sure the customer's long-distance business >stays with AT&T straight through. Yah, except that 1) it costs the BOC money to do the confirmations. Why should they pay to clean up an IEC's messes? and 2) I for one would be mildly pleased if the BOC called me and prevented a slam, and mildly PO'd at the IEC -- but I'd be royally furious at an IEC if the slam went through, and never even consider using them again. Not to mention that when a slam happens and gets corrected, ATT may have lost the POTENTIAL PROFIT on a few calls, but the IEC loses the income, and still had the expense of providing them. A positive sum game from the standpoint of the bell boys. Of course, this is just harmless suppositition ;^) and playful commentary. I don't have the twist of mind to really decipher phone industry plots. They make the Oswald conspiracy look like something out of an average kindergarden. Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor trebor@biar.UUCP
nam2254%dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil@dsac.dla.mil (Tom Ohmer) (10/03/90)
Tom Ohmer [O] and Chris Johnson [J] wrote in volume 10, issue 659:
< Robert Michael Gutierrez is the local expert on these matters, but
< I'll venture a theory: Tom's apartment-mate wanted MCI 1+ on his own
< line but 10222 access to his own MCI account if he should need to
< place a long-distance call from Tom's line, so he gave MCI both phone
< numbers with explicit instructions that his was to get primary service
< but Tom's was to get secondary service.
Nice guess, but wrong. ;-) My aptartment-mate did/does not have it's
own line. The primary service of *my* line was changed.
Tom Ohmer @ Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center,
DSAC-AMB, Bldg. 27-6, P.O. Box 1605, Columbus, OH 43216-5002
UUCP: ...osu-cis!dsac!tohmer INTERNET: tohmer@dsac.dla.mil
Phone: (614) 238-8059 AutoVoN: 850-8059 #include <stdsclmr.h>macy@fmsystm.uucp (Macy Hallock) (10/04/90)
In article <12719@accuvax.nwu.edu> David Tamkin writes: >No one has yet, as far as I've noticed, submitted >"my independent telco let a long-distance carrier slam me" >nor "my Bell telco stymied a slamming attempt on me." I've had several customers in GTE North territory slammed. To the best of my knowledge, I have never had a GTE rep call to confirm a carrier change. Ditto for Ohio Bell territory. Letters to OBT and GTE restricting carrier changes to requests submitted in writing only seem to work if you say "no one is authorized to change this service, but the owner/subscriber in writing." This apparently locks the account in the computer somehow. Any attempt to do anything short of this, e.g. "carrier changes only in writing" seem to just get a remarks line in the computer and carry little weight. Both MCI and Sprint were the slammers, plus one other smaller outfit (a reseller, I think) were involved. They lost anyway, because I program all my customers with "smart" system to automatically dial their chosen carrier's 10XXX code before all calls. They can't slam 10XXX! This also puts their intra-LATA calls on their selected carrier's bill, usually generating more savings. My customers with dumb key systems have had the usual slamming problems. I've also found a few Ohio Bell payphones that did not use the carrier shown on the front label ... the label usually said AT&T, but the carrier was actually someone else. On the subject of carriers (and other things): My personal favorite carrier is Litel. I've been able to call their technical people directly, gotten good cooperation, and fast response when needed. AT&T, MCI, Sprint and others could stand to learn a few things from them. GTE has wiped out Litel's access from certain CO's a few times (usually by killing a T1 feed or invalidating their 10432 carrier code in the CO database ... but that's par for the course with GTE. The fact is, for stone cold reliability, I have to say AT&T is still the carrier of choice. Their marketing and responsivness have improved, but the still need to learn from their competitors. I have to deal with too many vestiges of the "old" bureaucratic AT&T far too often, especially on special services circuit repair (tie lines, T1's, etc.) I should note that the largest percentage of our AT&T problems are actually Ohio Bell or GTE access link problems, but AT&T does not see to it that the job gets done ... they just refer it out to the telco and wait ... just like old times: finger pointing and bureaucracy. So ... we're back to the same old thing: the local telcos are the weakest link in the chain. Their monopolistic attitude from pre-divestiture is still evident in their customer service and repair practices. Their indifference toward slamming, poor repair/operating practices and anti-competitive tarriff are all symptoms of that attitude. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy