Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!iuvax!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: cory.berkeley.edu!c186aj@ucbcad.uucp (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo"
Message-ID: <3582@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 6 Feb 90 19:38:42 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 28
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 80, message 1 of 10


>[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

I agree that the caller should not get away with a free ride, but at
the same time I don't think it "fair" (whatever that means) for MCI to
profit from their misdeeds.  There has to be more punishment to the
misbehaving carriers than increased revenue.  

BTW, I called Pacific Bell to have them flag my account to ignore
requests from the long distance carriers, but no such capability
exists in their system (of course, the rep said their "hands were
tied" by the PUC to accept instructions from the long distance
carriers, which seems to be Pacific Bell's response to any customer
complaint over pricing or policies).  He also said that he's had to
deal with *many* problems in which customers' default carrier was
changed without their permission (of course, he couldn't identify them
by name, but they know who they are!).


[Moderator's Note: What you do is, you pay for the calls you made, and
you sue the carrier for misrepresenting themselves and taking
unauthorized action on your account.  PT]