Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Message-ID: <15416@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 16 Dec 90 16:26:58 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 52
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 882, Message 2 of 9


Jerry raises a good point in the message before this one, which if I
understand correctly is that by paying the unauthorized carrier of
your package or your phone call, you are in effect encouraging them to
continue the act of diverting things not intended for themselves.

This is only partly correct. There is a third party involved who
actually caused the misdelivery, i.e. your local telco.

In Jerry's example above, the analogy should be like this: You give a
package to an employee and tell them to take it to the 'express
office' for shipment. You neglect to say *which* express company, and
your employee was under the impression -- because of instructions
received at some time or another, or a misunderstanding of your
instructions -- that you wanted the package delivered to Pat's
Delivery Service instead of Federal Express. So, your employee drops
it off at Pat's, and Pat delivers your package in good faith. After
all, your package was brought to them by your agent/employee.

When you get the bill from Pat, you can't refuse to pay because your
employee/agent took the package to the wrong place. Get it straight
with your agent/employee instead ... the interstate delivery service
did as instructed.

When calling long distance, your local telco uses a form of shorthand
for your instructions: 1+ will be considered an abbreviation for the 
10xxx of your choice until you tell them differently. Somehow or
another they get those instructions incorrect. Maybe someone else did
legitimatly ask to use Pat, but the telco got the digits transposed on
the work order and mistakenly thought you wanted to use Pat. Maybe Pat
mistakenly or deliberatly told them you wanted to use his service.

If the carrier deliberatly did this, then we have different
circumstances than if the local telco did it in error. In the latter
case the LD carrier is not at fault and should be paid, and in fact
under the law they can force you to pay if necessary by suing you,
although it is unlikely one would do so for a few dollars.

And although I am not certain, I think if Pat picked up your express
package from a common drop off point where all tenants in your
building left their express mail, and if precise routing instructions
for your package were ambiguous, i.e. a 'generic' freight airbill as
opposed to one specifically saying 'Federal Express' that Pat could
also sue you to get paid if he took what he believed was an unrouted
delivery.

The answer lies in forcing the local telco to *confirm* these changes
in writing or otherwise rather than by some petty method of
withholding fees for services in fact rendered.


Patrick Townson