Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Calling Card Questions
Message-ID: <12860@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 1 Oct 90 03:54:14 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Jim Budler <jimb@silvlis.com>
Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca.
Lines: 41
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 701, Message 6 of 11


In article <12784@accuvax.nwu.edu> lmg@mtqub.att.com (Lawrence M Geary) writes:

>I have a few telephone calling card questions:

>Has anyone compared the surcharges and/or rates charged by the
>different types of cards? For example, would it be cheaper to use a NJ
>Bell card or an AT&T Universal card to make a given call? (And does it
>depend on where one is calling?)

The Universal card has an automatic 10% discount. If you can use it.
My wife encountered a situation calling from a PBX of unknown long
distance service.

When she tried 10288 she got a response "You're already using AT&T" No
call completion.

When she tried without the 10288, and "operator" came on the line.  He
was talking in the background to someone and paying partial attention
to my wife.

Doesn't sound like an AT&T operator to me.

When she gave the calling number and PIN he said "Too many numbers".

My feeling is that she reached another long distance service and their
programming didn't know about the invalid phone number scheme used for
the calling card number on the Universal Card.

I might get her to try probing the PBX with 700-555-4141, and see what
we get, but I'm not hopeful if they're blocking 10288 with such a
recording.

Any comments. She tried twice, and she's sure she used the correct 14
digits both times.  

My slightly divergent comments.


Jim Budler          jimb@silvlis.com       +1.408.991.6115
Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086