Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dino!sharkey!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: elm@allspice.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One Message-ID: <12706@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 27 Sep 90 09:04:57 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: Berkeley--Shaken, not Stirred Lines: 22 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 687, Message 9 of 9 Two comments about the AT&T Universal Card: First, there isn't enough room for two stripes on the back of the card. There's got to be enough space to sign the card as well. Even if there were room, what happens when someone comes up to a credit card/phone card telephone in an airport and swipes the card the wrong way? They'll be charged the credit card rates, not the AT&T phonecard rates. It's easier just to type in the calling card number. To the person afraid of calling card numbers on carbons, don't worry. The front of the card has only the equivalent of the phone number portion of the calling card number -- the four digit security code isn't there. Incidentally, the number I have is an illegal phone number, though the area code is valid. The exchange number starts with a 0, however, so the number is (under the current system) a disallowed phone number. Is there any system AT&T is using to assign these "phony" calling card phone numbers? ethan miller--cs grad student elm@sprite.berkeley.edu #include {...}!ucbvax!sprite!elm