Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!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: <12862@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 1 Oct 90 03:36:27 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 31
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 701, Message 8 of 11


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