Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!mingo@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming
Message-ID: <15597@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 90 23:39:32 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 31
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 897, Message 6 of 10


peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

>well.sf.ca.us!well!mingo (Charles Hawkins Mingo) writes:

>> >Why is "slamming" not considered, and treated, as theft?

>>       Because AT&T doesn't "own" the right to do business with you.

>Like hell they don't! They have a contract with you, via your local phone
>company.

	The contract you have with AT&T governs *how* you will pay for
service *if* you place LD calls using AT&T.  You never agree to place
*all* your calls with AT&T.  In fact, you don't even have an operative
contract *until* you place a call.  (Why?  In order to have a
contract, each side must, at the very least, promise to do something
specific.  Since you haven't promised to make any specific level of
calls (or indeed any calls at all) you have no performance obligation
WRT AT&T.  And if you don't have any obligation WRT them, they don't
WRT you -- this is known as mutuality of obligation.)

	I don't think you want to claim that consumers shouldn't have
the *right* to switch carriers (which they wouldn't, if AT&T "owned"
the right to their business).  You're upset because some incompetent
or evil third- party has usurped the consumer's right to choose.  But
from AT&T point of view, it matters little whether the decision to
switch originated with the consumer or someone else.


Charlie Mingo		mingo@cup.portal.com	mingo@well.sf.ca.us