Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo"
Message-ID: <3671@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 8 Feb 90 16:36:42 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 29
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 88, message 2 of 10


In response to Doug Faunt's comment on the user paying their choice of
carrier instead of the deceitful unauthorized-switching one:

No, the only way the idea would work is if all the following are in
place:

1) The carrier has an active disincentive to illicitly switch, in that
they will get no revenue and still expend resources.

2) The individual has an incentive (free LD service) to actively punish
the deceitful carrier.

3) The industry as a whole loses; there is NO income to any LD carrier
when one defrauds -- this gives the carrier community an incentive to
police its own ranks.

4) The local telco gets out of the LD billing business entirely.
Otherwise you are playing games with your own local phone bill and
involving what really should be independent and disinterested third
parties. Unfortunately, this will be the hardest part to implement.
There still is too much of a "we" mentality among the BOC's and LD
companies (especially the spun-off BOCs and AT&T). The BOCs should
adopt a more distant and hostile "them" attitude toward the LD
companies, and be a "we" with the local consumer against the LD
carriers.


Regards, Will