custom ad
OpinionMay 26, 1999

Last week's decision by a federal appeals court to block the enforcement of new FCC rules against slamming -- the illegal switching of long-distance telephone service without a customer's permission -- might, at first blush, look like an erosion of consumer protection. But phone customers who suddenly start receiving bills from long-distance providers they don't want may have an even better alternative than provided by the new FCC rules...

Last week's decision by a federal appeals court to block the enforcement of new FCC rules against slamming -- the illegal switching of long-distance telephone service without a customer's permission -- might, at first blush, look like an erosion of consumer protection. But phone customers who suddenly start receiving bills from long-distance providers they don't want may have an even better alternative than provided by the new FCC rules.

The FCC adopted its new rules last year, but they didn't go into effect until last week. The new rules give phone customers a mechanism for protesting when they were slammed and also allow them to avoid paying disputed long-distance charges.

But leaders in the long-distance industry, most of whom scrupulously try to avoid slamming, have been working together to come up with a system of self-policing. Not only does the industry-backed plan offer a good deal for consumers, it also would be operated without taxpayer dollars or government strings.

Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!

Basically, the long-distance companies want to set up a third-party panel that would field complaints, determine liability and handle refunds, if warranted.

The industry-backed plan is fairly simple: The panel set up to hear slamming complaints would have 30 days to determine whether an illegal service change occurred. I so, and the customer has already paid for the disputed long-distance calls, the offending company would be required to return the payment to the customer's designated long-distance carrier, half of which would be used as credit for future long-distance bills. If the customer hadn't already paid for long-distance service due to slamming, there would be 30 days of free service from a designated carrier at the expense of the carrier that illegally switched the service in the first place.

All in all, it sounds like the industry plan would better serve the needs of telephone customers who are frustrated by slamming. The court was right to ask the FCC to give further consideration to the plan before implementing the new rules.

Story Tags
Advertisement

Connect with the Southeast Missourian Newsroom:

For corrections to this story or other insights for the editor, click here. To submit a letter to the editor, click here. To learn about the Southeast Missourian’s AI Policy, click here.

Advertisement
Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!