Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Message-ID: <15478@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 90 15:14:56 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: One Man Brand
Lines: 63
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 10 of 12


mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally) writes:

> 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.

> [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

   So, some wiseguy lives down the street from you, and hears you call
Sears on your cordless phone. He calls Sears back and cancels your
order with them, and then calls K-Mart and orders a cheap replacement
refrigerator to be sent to you. The wiseguy is the, often third party,
telemarketer who told your telco to switch service.

   The piece of junk (not to slam K-Mart, but you ordered the
top-of-the-line Sears and got the bottom of the line K-Mart) shows up
on your doorstep. It is not as pretty, and it has a shorter warranty,
and a shorter mean time between failures, but it keeps just as much
food just as cold as the Sears would i.e., this fridge provides the
same service as the one you asked for. (The shorter MTBF does not mean
this one will break down sooner, just like a high disconnect rate for
a carrier does not mean this call will disconnect.)

   Who do you owe, and how much? 

   1) You owe K-Mart what you expected to pay Sears. This is the "owe the
      slammer what you expected to pay to your chosen LD carrier" argument.

   2) You owe Sears what you expected to pay. This is the "pay your chosen
      LD carrier anyway" argument.

   3) You owe K-Mart what K-Mart wants you to pay. This is the "telco is
      your employee argument."

   4) You owe nobody anything. This is the "owe nobody anything" argument.

   The service was provided. The place you wanted to provide the
service did not do it, they deserve nothing. You did not ask K-Mart to
provide any service, but it did. If you think K-Mart should be paid
for providing service you did not ask them to, then please provide me
with your address and I will have a refridgerator there tomorrow. You
will, of course, pay me what I want for it, even though you did not
ask me to send you one.

   You owe K-Mart the chance to come pick its refridgerator up. That's
all. If they choose not to pick it up, or are unable to, you have a
free fridge. Yes, you indeed, legally and ethically, benefit from
someone elses mistake. You owe the unchosen carrier the chance to
retrieve its service.

   So, which payment option is correct? Only number 4.

   Now consider if the third party above was a K-Mart employee. How
does this change things? K-Mart is now guilty of fraud. Other than
that, who you owe for what does not change.