Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!telecom-request
From: richarbm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan Richardson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness
Message-ID: <72177@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Date: 13 Jan 91 03:52:28 GMT
Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu
Reply-To: Bryan Richardson <richarbm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 38
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 31, Message 10 of 10


In article <16006@accuvax.nwu.edu> zweig@cs.uiuc.edu writes:

>...I ordered it the same day I read about it in
>comp.dcom.telecom) and have continually had trouble getting the number
>to work with _any_ long distance company other than AT&T. This
>includes MCI, Sprint and a couple of other carriers in the US and
>Canada.

>My understanding was that there was some kind of mechanism for
>distributing calling card numbers (my Illinois Bell number for my home
>phone works fine) -- does anyone know why the numbers for AT&T
>Universal VISA cards aren't distributed?  It seems kind of like a
>you-must-use-AT&T-long-distance-you-measly-mortal ploy to me (since I
>have 10ATT0'ed on numerous occasions to save my 10% at phone booths).

Most calling cards issued are issued in connection with a particular
line or billing number; The calling card number is of the
form:NPA-NXX-XXXX-PINN.  Upon request and for internal use, calling
card numbers are generated where the first four digits are not
N(0/1)X-N.  Looking at my Universal Card, I see that the same thing
holds true of the calling card number there.

I suspect two reasons for non-acceptance by other IECs:

1.)  The most likely is that the number is not distributed to other 
     IECs to prevent customers from dialling using other IECs -- where
     you're sure not to get your 10% and perhaps a whole lot worse (AOSs).

2.)  The other databases performing the validation are unable to accept
     numbers which do not conform to N(0/1)X-N as the first few digits.
     (This is probably unlikely, as they undoubtably wish to provide
     similar 'security.')


Bryan Richardson
AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University.
Disclaimer:  Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions.