Path: utzoo!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: pixar!rick@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick Ace)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming
Message-ID: <15558@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 90 22:08:39 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 25
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 895, Message 3 of 11


> [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.

Does this mean one would have to haul out the tariffs and calculate by
hand what the bill would have been with the correct long distance
company?  That's quite a bit of work for Joe Customer.  Someone else
screwed up and that someone else should do the work.  I wouldn't pay
the part that is in dispute until the problem was resolved to my
satisfaction.

> Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you
> place. This is required by tariff. But you also have the right to sue
> the carrier for tampering / interfering with your existing service.
> After all, they caused you to get disconnected from your long distance
> carrier of choice, did they not?   PAT]

You forgot the :-).  Didn't you?  No?  You can't be serious about
suggesting that we clog the already overburdened courts with a lawsuit
of such little importance.


Rick Ace      ucbvax!pixar!rick