Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: c186aj@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: MCI Playing "Switcheroo"
Message-ID: <3559@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 90 15:55:53 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 23
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 79, message 2 of 7


It seems like several telecom readers have had bad experiences with
MCI telling the BOC to switch their equal access default carrier.  It
would seem to me that unless the customer requested the change, that
the customer is using MCI (or whatever it got changed to) without his
or her knowledge.  This being the case, can MCI enforce payment.  

1) The customer did not know that they were using MCI.

2) By billing the customer for the calls, MCI is in effect generating
business through an illegal act (I assume that telling the BOC that
the customer has requested a change when this is not the case is
illegal).  Isn't it a general principle of law that you can't enforce
payment on a debt resulting from an illegal act?


[Moderator's Note: But the point is, you did make the call, so you
have to pay *someone*. To not pay at all based on your line of
reasoning would be an unjust enrichment for yourself. There are also
laws again you you profiting from an 'illegal act', which is what you
would be doing if you did not pay. I'd say however it would be fair to
pay MCI only the amount you anticipated you would be paying had the
call been routed per your original instructions.  PT