Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: biar!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King
Message-ID: <12830@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 29 Sep 90 10:58:52 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Biar Games, Inc.
Lines: 21
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 698, Message 4 of 4


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