Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!rutgers!usc!ucselx!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: "Slamming" Term
Message-ID: <14001@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 26 Oct 90 03:41:20 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 23
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 761, Message 4 of 10


Hi-

I saw in {The New York Times} (Thurs, Oct. 18, 1990) that AT&T accused
MCI of "slamming" over 90,000 AT&T customers. It further said that
these were only the customers who informed AT&T that they had been
"slammed", and that there were potentially many more who didn't even
realize it.

In response, MCI vice president Eugene Eidenberg stated: "Let me state
emphatically that the frequency of unauthorized switching has been
grossly exaggererated by AT&T." (Uh huh...SURE it has! :-) )

So AT&T seems to use the word "slamming", and MCI prefers the term
"switching" ... I wonder why??? ;-)

I think I'll stick with AT&T's terminology...


Doug

dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu
dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet