Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: asuvax!mothra!bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Proposed Anti-Slamming Regulations
Message-ID: <13795@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 90 17:48:39 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: gte
Lines: 36
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 744, Message 7 of 7


In article <13585@accuvax.nwu.edu>, davidb@pacer.uucp (David Barts)
writes:

>  o If any customer claims he or she has been "slammed" and there is no
> written documentation of the customer's approval of the change, the
> customer's word is taken to be correct, the customer is switched back
> to his original LD carrier AT THE SLAMMER'S EXPENSE, and THE CUSTOMER

LD carriers are currently required to obtain written permission from
the subscriber to change the LD carrier.  AT&T did NOT request that an
already-existing regulation be passed anew; they proposed that the
regulation be more strictly and universally enforced.  The alternate
carriers object to stricter enforcement, because of the alleged
difficulty in getting customers to send back the signature card.

> IS NOT CHARGED IN ANY WAY FOR LD SERVICE FURNISHED DURING THE PERIOD
> OF TIME THE SLAMMING WAS IN EFFECT.  The unsolicited service is
> considered to be a free gift to the customer.

This would be an interesting new twist, and probably justifiable based
on your Ronco Spit-o-Matic analogy.  If you didn't request the service
or product, you don't pay the bill.

JB


[Moderator's Note: Except some legal beagles contend that by lifting
the phone receiver and dialing the desired digits you were in fact
requesting or soliciting the service. By failing to dial the 10xxx
code on the front, you are requesting the service from the 'default'
carrier, which might not be the carrier you want. To insure you get
the one you want, you can always dial 10xxx. So, the legal beagles say
you can sue the carrier who wrongfully took over the default on your
line, but they in turn can sue you for not paying for the calls they
handled for you.  I guess it washes out.   PAT]