Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: heiby@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (Ron Heiby)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Message-ID: <15477@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 90 21:54:30 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL
Lines: 44
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 887, Message 9 of 12


Patrick raises a few good points in pointing out that there's that
pesky third party in there.  I think he's still missing the central
point, though.

>package to an employee and tell them to take it to the 'express
>office' for shipment. You neglect to say *which* express company, and

Ah, but we all chose a particular LD company to be our one + default
carrier, so the local operating company *has* been told how to direct
our calls.  If the LOC uses the wrong LD company, then one of two
things happened.

	1)  They made a mistake.
	2)  Some LD company slammed the customer.

>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.

Ok, let's examine each of the two possibilities.  I say that in case
number 1, the LOC owes the LD carrier for the entire amount of the LD
calls improperly placed.  Routing of my LD calls is part of what I'm
paying outrageous monthly sums to the LOC for, anyway.  I say that in
case number two, the LD carrier shouldn't get paid by anybody.

>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,

As I say above, if the LD carrier is not at fault, then the LOC *is*,
and it is *they* who should pay for their mistakes.

If LD carriers had to eat the cost of their slamming, they would find
that it was no longer profitable to slam.  If the LD carriers are
"victims" of their direct marketing companies, then they should fire
those companies that are slamming and seek to recover the lost LD
revenues from the slime-balls.  If the LOCs had to eat the cost when
they made such mistakes, they would quickly figure out how to make
fewer such mistakes. 


Ron Heiby
heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com	Moderator: comp.newprod