You remember slamming? That’s the practice of switching a landline subscriber’s phone service without permission. While this carrier thievery still goes on, there are various rules and laws that protect all of us against unauthorized changes to a phone plan, and for fining misbehaving players.
The term slamming was coined by Mick Ahearn who was a consumer marketing manager at AT&T in September 1987. The inspiration for the term came from the ease at which a competitor could switch a customer’s service away from AT&T by falsely notifying a telephone company that an AT&T customer had elected to switch to their service. This process gave AT&T’s competitors a “slam dunk” method for the unauthorized switching of a customer’s long distance service. The term slamming became an industry standard term for this practice.
Then there’s the deregulated world of VoIP, where all that slamming stuff is not necessarily governed by the regulatory communication bodies.
This means the FCC (USA) and CRTC (Canada) don’t have governance on the problem. We are not all that worried about this. We have a different way of handling this.
A good old fashioned Civil action filed in the courts.
‘If’ any of our customer numbers are ‘slammed’ it means their phone service is moved from our network to another parties network.If this happens and it is not at the request of our client we do the following:
- Violation 1 – Mandatory invoice of $ 10,000 per incident on a general basis
- Violation 2 – Mandatory invoice of $ 10,000 per impacted DID
Will the offending party pay the bill?
They will eventually. After 30 days, it hits collection at which time we file an action against the offending party for payment.
We follow through. Because we think it is important to do so. It is also equally important to ensure that your phone numbers are properly managed by us and any attempt to interfere with our operations needs to be vigorously defended.
Slamming causes outage
When a DID is ported with out consent, outage occurs. Outages causes inconvenience and expense for both of us (Frontier and our client). These expenses, lost business, interruption etc. are causation for a claim for damages.
We have only one incident going on at the moment. It was occurrence #2. Occurrence #1 was suggested to be an ‘error’. Occurrence #2 tells me that they are either intentionally negligent or highly disorganized. Either way, they have been invoiced.
Port carefully 😉