Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Message-ID: <12420@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 21 Sep 90 19:13:06 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 63 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 665, Message 8 of 9 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 ?" "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