Jim Budler <jim@eda.com> (02/01/90)
gordon@sneaky.tandy.com (Gordon Burditt) writes: [...] } Sigh. If they are going to fix the rules, why can't they do it right: } Require all customers to obtain written permission from long-distance [...] } authorization would have to be provided on request by the customer in } the event of a dispute by the long-distance company as to whether they [...] I'm afraid I fail to see the logic which makes this more "right". In fact it appears to protect the phone company as opposed to protecting the consumer. Since the original change was being made to protect the the consumer from piratical actions by sleezy phone companies. I don't see how your proposal would do that. In addition, your proposal would add to the government mandated records which *I* would be required to maintain. Something which is less than desirable. Jim Budler jim@eda.com ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim compuserve: 72415,1200 applelink: D4619 voice: +1 408 986-9585 fax: +1 408 748-1032
Gordon Burditt <gordon@sneaky.tandy.com> (02/02/90)
In article <3402@accuvax.nwu.edu> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: >gordon@sneaky.tandy.com (Gordon Burditt) writes: >[...] >} Sigh. If they are going to fix the rules, why can't they do it right: ... >} Require all customers to obtain written permission from long-distance >[...] ... >I'm afraid I fail to see the logic which makes this more "right". In >fact it appears to protect the phone company as opposed to protecting >the consumer. Since the original change was being made to protect the >the consumer from piratical actions by sleezy phone companies. I don't >see how your proposal would do that. I suppose I should have included some more context in this discussion. Problem: Carriers keep screwing up people's default carrier. My solution: Deny carriers permission to change anyone's default carrier for any reason. Also deny them permission to know anyone's default carrier, or to know who has *THEM* as a default carrier. Objection: Carriers have a right to refuse customers, for insufficient credit among other reasons. Me: (grumble) They won't take them as a default carrier, but they will take them as a 10XXX casual caller? This seems somewhat pointless. Deadbeats can't dial 5 extra digits? Ok, if they MUST have this, then have the customers get a note from the carrier and pass it on to the local phone company, NOT have the carrier get a note from the customer and pass it on to the local phone company. >In addition, your proposal would add to the government mandated >records which *I* would be required to maintain. Something which is >less than desirable. I expect AT&T would immediately say "We'll take anyone". Others would probably follow suit, but even if they didn't, all that would be needed would be an indication that an account had been set up for those carriers that insist on this. Southwestern Bell allows you to request that they only honor requests from you, directly, for carrier changes. (This should be the default). I don't know if it's ever been tested - I suspect they will not honor my request to "prosecute first and ask questions later" anyone who tries. It also takes lots of talking, but they will allow "null" as a default carrier selection. (No, this does not cut off all access to long distance. That is a different option, and costs $$ per month.) Gordon L. Burditt ...!texbell!sneaky!gordon [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell will also allow 'none' as the default 1+ carrier, meaning one plus anything other than 1-700, 1-800 and 1-900 are intercepted and given re-order tone. Likewise, '00' is busied out. People with 'none' must dial 10xxx on every LD call. They will also completely toll-restrict the line if requested. These days it is no skin off their nose. PT]