Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: Mike.Riddle@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Riddle)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls
Message-ID: <4322@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 90 03:35:25 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Mike.Riddle@p6.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537
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 126, Message 2 of 11


In a recent message, Wm Randolph Franklin writes:
  
(inquiring as to AT&T's basis for charging the called party when the
caller refuses to pay or is unable.)

>Anyone know what the legal basis for this is?  

AT&T undoubtedly is using some theory of unjust enrichment.  The
called party, in a case where numerous calls of lengthy duration are
in question, received some benefit and therefore should pay.  While it
might not seem fair, in that the called party did not, on the record,
ask for the call, AT&T certainly did not ask for it either (except
through all the advertising?  and then they expected payment!).
  
Between the "innocent" third party provider (AT&T) or the two parties
to the call, AT&T should be the last to pay for it.
  
That would be the theory anyway.  I expect a lot of us could structure
an argument that "getting stiffed is part of the cost of doing
business."  Then we'd hightail it down to the PUC and lobby against
rate increases.
  
Rambling off.
 
{standard disclaimer:  not even *I* take my advice, why should you?}

   Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.1
   Origin: [1:285/666.6@fidonet]   The Inns of Court         (285/666.6)
   Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
   Mike.Riddle@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org