Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bu.edu!eecs.nwu.edu
From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: AT&T Red-Lining of Card Calls From Payphones
Message-ID: <59816@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Date: 30 Jun 90 04:12:16 GMT
Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
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 462, Message 1 of 10


In recent issues of the Digest, people have mentioned their inability
to use the AT&T Calling Card from certain payphones in the United
States to call certain foreign countries.

Sometimes payphones reject credit card calls to one country, while
allowing the same type of call to other countries.

Is this sort of red-lining legal? Is it discriminatory to block calls
to, for example, Mexico or Colombia, while allowing the same payphone
to handle calls to the UK or France?  Is it discriminatory to allow
residents in one part of town to make credit card calls from payphones
while refusing other credit-worthy citizens in another neighborhood
the right to do the same thing?  Since the Universal Card is a
bona-fide credit card (in addition to its role as a phone card), are
there violations of Federal Trade Commission regulations when AT&T
refuses to extend credit (in this case both as the credit grantor as
well as the seller) based on arbitrary red-lining of certain
neighborhoods? 

In a phone conversation Friday with AT&T Public Relations, I asked
these questions and more. Someone is supposed to get back to me soon
with answers.  You will be the first to hear them, once I get back
from out of town next week ... provided AT&T has replied. 


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator