Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Message-ID: <15456@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 17 Dec 90 18:04:55 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: mcnally@wsl.dec.com
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab
Lines: 33
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 885, Message 5 of 10


In article <15415@accuvax.nwu.edu>, leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter)
writes:

|> The Moderator continues to opine that, even if you are "slammed", you
|> still should have to pay for the calls you make

|> This is wrong. . . .

I agree with Jerry, primarily on the basis of laws in existance
covering un-ordered packages delivered to one's door.  If Sears sends
me a new refrigerator without my asking for it, my understanding is
that I get to store twice as many Tupperware containers full of slowly
rotting leftovers and I don't owe them a dime.  I don't know why
slamming is really any different.

I am of course a non-lawyer, and even if I weren't there's in general
little relationship between rational lines of thought and what is
decided in a civil suit.


Mike McNally   mcnally@wsl.dec.com


[Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through
the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the
service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number.
Granted, it was not delivered by the carrier you thought you had
requested to do it, but you did solicit the connection and you did, I
assume, benefit from the connection. I think your hassle is with the
local telco for making the change without confirming it with you. You
can always ensure your call is routed as desired by using the 10xxx
codes when dialing.  PAT]