Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming
Message-ID: <15417@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 14 Dec 90 19:46:23 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 32
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 3 of 9


ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper):

> No, no, no!  The fact that charges may be the same are irrelevant.
> These are ill-gotten gains.  [...]
> I refused to pay for the Sprint portion of the bill AT ALL.

> [Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming
> carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount
> you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust
> enrichment to yourself. Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you
> place. This is required by tariff. ...  PAT]

Why is "slamming" not considered, and treated, as theft?  Theft of
long distance business from one carrier by another?  (In this case,
theft of AT&T business by Sprint?)  It seems to me that if anyone has
a complaint here, it is AT&T -- they are the ones who lost business
through what I would consider misrepresentation, if not outright
fraud.  (Anyway, why should I sue Sprint?  AT&T has more lawyers that
I do. :-) )

While I tend to agree that the caller owes *someone* for long distance
service, it isn't Sprint.  If this were my problem, I would be willing
to pay AT&T (at AT&T rates) for the long distance service consumed,
since that is what I originally expected to pay, but I would certainly
resist paying Sprint one red cent.


John G Dobnick  (JGD2)
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
INTERNET: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu             ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
UUCP: uunet!uwm!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!jgd