Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!uwm.edu!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: dnewman@mcc.com (David Newman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Proposed Anti-Slamming Regulations
Message-ID: <13832@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 20 Oct 90 20:16:19 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: PUT YOUR NAME HERE <racine!dnewman@uunet.uu.net>
Organization: MCC  Austin, Texas
Lines: 28
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 748, Message 4 of 9


Yesterday I got a call from MCI.  He begain his solicitation, and I
interrupted to say "I have ATT, and I don't want to switch thank you."
The salesman tried to continue his spiel.  I said: "As I said, I don't
want to switch, and furthermore, I don't want to be slammed."  He
asked what slamming was (come on!), and replied that for him to change
my carrier, I would have to recieve *three* phone calls, and provide
my social security number.

A couple of questions: 1) Was he giving me the run-around?  Three
phone calls to verify the change seems quite odd.  I thought that the
net-consensus was that there would be one call-back, not two.  2) IF
he was telling the truth, why does the phone company have my SSN?
This also seems odd to me.  3) Finally, it doesn't seem too likely
that he didn't know what "slamming" was: is this term used widely as
it is here on the TELECOM Digest, or is it a bit of jargon that we
have picked up by reading the Digest?

I found it incredibly annoying that the guy just refused to take NO
for an answer.  The conversation continued beyond the portion that I
have reported, and I finally had to just hang up on the guy - he would
not end the conversation and go away.  It is interesting that they
would violate the normal "ettiquette" of telephone behavior in this
way, and yet another reason to avoid subscribing to their service, in
my (twisted and unusual) opinion.


Dave