Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 14:20:43 EDT From: andys@ulysses.att.com Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? Message-ID: Organization: TELECOM Digest Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu 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 451, Message 2 of 11 Lines: 63 In article you write: > I think that this latest move on the part of AT&T will lose them an > important competetive advangage, that is having the same card number > for both local and LD use. In my case, it is certainly making me think > long and hard about contacting one of the other companies, not only for > credit card service but for 1+ service at home too. Another marketing > coup in the mill. Wonder if some other carrier is paying AT&T employees > to do these dumb things ... nah, probably would be a waste of money. Obviously, you missed the followup traffic from AT&T people, including me, on this. AT&T now buys card verification services from the LECs for LEC issued card numbers (the ones with your home phone) and sells card verification services to the LECs for AT&T issued card numbers (the new Calling Cards and the Universal Cards). AT&T does *not* sell card verification services to OCCs. Thus you may charge both local and AT&T carried long distance calls on your new AT&T Calling Card, just as you already can on your Universal Card. Why switch? > Additionally I am upset by the misrepresentation of the reason for the > changes in the AT&T card numbers. I am no lawyer and I may not know > the whole story but I think that the statement something to the affect > that the change is being made because of "government rules" is so > misleading that it borders on an outright lie. I think the "government > rule" that they are referring to is one that simply states "the RBOC > must make available to the OCCs the database used for credit card > verification and (here comes the important part) the OCC must ***PAY*** > the RBOC for using that database." I don't know what the legal issues are. Rest assured that if they apply to us, they will apply to the OCCs as well, by and by. To my knowledge, we've been paying for card verification for a long time. > I believe that the main reason for the change is a cost cutting move > on the part of AT&T. Simple as that; they don't want to pay the RBOC > to share numbers anymore. Anybody at AT&T care to refute or clarify > this "government rule" for me. I hope they save big bucks because > they will probably lose me as a customer. Other than any legal requirements or encouragements, there is ample reason for AT&T to want to make this move. A transition from being a service customer to a service provider is certainly good business. Lowering our cost structure is not an evil thing. It enables that money to be better spent elsewhere. But beyond costs, consider this: your AT&T Calling Card number will be yours forever, *FOR CHARGING BOTH LOCAL AND AT&T LONG DISTANCE CALLS*, no matter how many times you move or change your home phone number. Furthermore, no AOS will be able to bill to that card number. There has been an enormous volume of customer complaints on the order of "I charged it to my AT&T Card but then Joe's Bar, Grill, and Telco charged me 10 times normal for the call". That can't happen with the new card. I hope we don't lose you as a customer. Certainly, the new card should be a plus, not a minus, once you understand what it can do. And it *CAN* do your local calls. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking!