Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 12:44 EDT From: Macy Hallock Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) Message-ID: Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 490, Message 6 of 9 Lines: 97 Regarding the thread on CA's Thrifty Tel and its hacker oriented tarriffs: While not a utility lawyer myself, I have paid for the services of a couple, and been taught some expensive lessons by others ... So let me advance a few of points in this discussion: The granting of common carrier status and filing of tariffs which have been approved by the PUC make the utility a slightly different contractual entity in the eyes of the courts. Generally speaking, the PUC acts as an agent for the public in structuring the contract with the utility. This means that use of the utility's service in a voluntary (or sometimes involuntary) fashion binds you to payment of the under the terms of contract. (Which is contained in the utility's tariff structure.) Now, gross negligence, fraud, or malicious acts are never permissable under any contract in any state I know of. Other than that, the utility is afforded protections that most normal businesses do not enjoy. (Try suing a phone company sometime, you will receive an education concerning their special status under regulatory and utility laws.) If the tariff was filed in a manner which deceived the PUC, then the tariff and its protections can be invalidated. If the PUC acted in a manner contrary to their authority under the law, then the tariff can be invalid, also. This also means that many parts of the UCC are not directly applicable to a regulated utility acting under their filed tariffs. Speaking in general terms, that would seem to mean Thrifty Tel has a basis to enforce their tariffs. Remember, part of the status of common carrier requires that the tariffs be published and available to the public for inspection, and in fact these are often published in newspapers of record at some point. The fact is: the use of Thrifty Tel's FGB access code constitues voluntary use of their services under their currently published tariff structure. Analogy: just because you do not agree with MCI's rate does not mean you do not have to pay for the call when you dial 10222+ (a rather simple, widely distributed code) and make a call. As for the posting of TT's codes in local bulletin boards ... sounds like unpaid advertising or word-of-mouth. The public posting or even paid advertising of a common carriers service availability has never been illegal. Would you ask for a rebate if you neighbor said dial 900-RIP-OFFF and you then got a bill? I doubt the PUC would agree ... I know of many people who have been bound to pay for their own and their children's activities using telephones that ran up large long distance bills out of their own ignorance. The PUC holds that the bills are still valid and the courts seem inclined to agree. Once in a while, a telco or carrier will grant a billing adjustment in a case such as this, but there is usually a provision in their tariff that allows them to do this under certain circumstances, and at their sole discression. They are specifically not bound to do this in all similar cases. The only trend that counters this concerns telco billing of services provided by others (such as 900, AOS's and OCC's). In those cases, the telco's have found it expidient to limit their tariffs to allowing themselves to act only as billing agents, and now do not want to act as collection agents. This is primarily due to political pressure from consumer groups and the newspapers. As a result, its very unlikely that you will have your local telephone service cut off due to an unpaid 900 bill. The phone company will return the billing uncollected to the provider, who must then pursue its own collection against you. From the descriptions provided by the readers of the Digest, it appears that this is exactly what Thrifty Tel is doing. Based on my past experiences, Thrify Tel is working on the fringe of regulatory law, but within it. My prediction: either the PUC or legislature will amend PUC regulations to make Thrifty Tel change their tariff when the political or consumer pressure increases. It has happened before! Common sense has nothing to do with this process. Personal opinion: Thrifty Tel has found an interesting approach to making long distance resale profitable. I am always wary when an industry has to use lawyers and lawsuits to conduct business, though. TT will do wonders to increase the public's awareness of the potential cost of phone hacking. I wish the newspapers would take same tone of voice they use when reporting drug related activity when reporting hacking, though. Guess I was just not innnovative enough when I tried to put together a long distance reseller in the early 80's .... Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you]