Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!spool2.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: am299bv@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Ravinder Bhumbla) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again Message-ID: <16227@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 20 Jan 91 23:49:22 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: Ravinder Bhumbla Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 72 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 52, Message 5 of 7 In article <16204@accuvax.nwu.edu> DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: >[the usual call-blocking experience, followed by misinformation from >the operator about international call blocking >I remember a few months ago we were discussing this very same thing, >and if I recall correctly, a letter was sent to the chairman of AT&T >via AT&T mail (or AT&T's in-house system, if not the same). What ever >came of this? >[Moderator's Note: Don't you love the bogus and totally stupid stories >the AT&T operators make up about these things? Don't waste time with >them or their supervisors. Some time back I had had the same trouble trying to call India and had been told the same answer - "the call-blocking is at the request of the country being called". At the advice of the Moderator and on receiving the e-mail address from another reader (I think it was reallen@attmail.com - correct me if I am wrong), I had sent e-mail to this address. I had protested the blocking and the fact that the operators were lying to me. I received a call from the local AT&T office a couple of days later. The lady apologized, said it was due to high rate of fraud, and said that if I had trouble in the future, I could mention her name and ask the operator/supervisor to override the call blocking. I was also told that I would be receiving written communication separately from Mr. Allen (which, by the way, I never did). I had posted all this in this newsgroup. Coincidentally, last week I had to dial India from a friend's home phone. I tried to use my AT&T Universal Card but after I entered the card number, the call was intercepted by an operator. She told me that her computer showed that this call was not permitted. I protested that this was not even a payphone, but she was unyielding. Then I remembered my previous experience and repeated the whole thing to her including the the name of the representative who had called me. I mentioned that the representative had advised me to ask the operator to override the blocking. To my surprise, the operator immediately agreed. However, it is impossible to get through to India on the first attempt and I had to call again. Again it was intercepted by an operator (I don't know if it was the same one), and she put the call through without any further questions. So, I would suggest that you send e-mail to the above address or contact the local AT&T office. That way you might be able to talk to the operator/supervisor and make an international call when you need to. I am sure that they'll not lift the call-blocking in general. Ravinder Bhumbla rbhumbla@ucsd.edu Office Phone: (619) 534-7894 [Moderator's Note: Let me repeat that email address which flashed across your screen a second ago in case you missed it, or didn't have your pencil handy: reallen@attmail.com. I certainly do not condone long distance billing fraud, however this business of refusing service to all credit card users because of the acts of a few phreaks is wrong. Even if they refuse service to pay phones, why are they also refusing service to private phones where the responsible party can easily be identified? Bank cards and other credit cards rely on either the physical presence of the card when the transaction is going on *or* the PIN, as in the case of bank ATM cards, or both. Why can't AT&T rely on the PIN as a reasonable assurance the card is being used by its rightful owner unless they are otherwise notified it is stolen? When used with a card reader type phone, why can't the presence of the card and the PIN serve as adequate proof for AT&T? Instead of solving the fraud problem, AT&T is taking an easy way out: just blackball anyone calling several foreign countries. PAT]