Ken Abrams <kabra437@athenanet.com> (06/10/91)
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. 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 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.
Martin B Weiss <mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu> (06/12/91)
In article <telecom11.449.2@eecs.nwu.edu> kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: > 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." While I am unfamiliar with the details of this, it is consistent with the spirit if not the letter of the recent AOS legislation. One of the problems of using the same number was that it may have been easier for AOS companies to take the calls, even though they weren't authorized to do it. Having a different number makes this more difficult. Also (although unrelated) AT&T was required to provide 950-xxxx access as well as 10xxx access, as has been done by other carriers. I have an MCI card for the reason that 950 access was possible -- which is a measure of solid protection against overcharges from COCOTs or hotels. The other thing is, a unique number makes it clearer to the consumer that they are dealing with separate companies. Do you expect your Visa and American Express cards to have the same numbers? Martin Weiss Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh Internet: mbw@lis.pitt.edu OR mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: mbw@pittvms
andys@ulysses.att.com (06/12/91)
In article <telecom11.449.2@eecs.nwu.edu> 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!
Steve Forrette <forrette@cory.berkeley.edu> (06/12/91)
It was written: [stuff about 14 digit random AT&T calling cards deleted] > 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. The databases are still being shared. The RBOCs accept the 14 digit random AT&T cards, and AT&T still accepts the RBOC cards, whether or not they're related to your phone number. The big difference is that the other long distance carriers will not have access to the random AT&T cards, although they still have access to the RBOC cards. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu
"Ole J. Jacobsen" <ole@csli.stanford.edu> (06/13/91)
I got my new AT&T calling card the other day. I immediately had to call AT&T to find out what line the card pertains to, since the new magic number bears no relation to the old scheme, and AT&T did not have the sense to print "This card is for use with your line 415-550-xxxx" in the printed advisory that follows the card. (I have five lines, some of which are "for business" so I do need to know what calls I am charging to what account). I mentioned the fact that I did not believe this new scheme had anything to do with "government regulations" and the AT&T person responded: "What people on the outside did not know is that AT&T has not been fully divested until now. The new calling card system is the final stage of divestiture as required by law.." I'm not convinced. I think there are two basic reasons for why they did this: 1. Old AT&T cards are now being accepted by other carriers. I have been billed by all sort of outfits from MCI to Joe Random carrier by simply using the good 'ol 10-digit + PIN scheme. AT&T obviously hates this and wants the new "proprietary cards" to secure their revenue. 2. As metioned in the Digest already, with the new cards, billing will be (I presume) handled by AT&T directly and thus no (costly) arrangements with the RBOCs need to be in place. Anybody know how much of a "grace period" they are going to give us with the old cards? Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, Phone: (415) 941-3399 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu Direct: (415) 962-2515
Bill Huttig <wah@zach.fit.edu> (06/16/91)
In article <telecom11.457.3@eecs.nwu.edu> ole@csli.stanford.edu (Ole J. Jacobsen) writes: > not been fully divested until now. The new calling card system is the > final stage of divestiture as required by law.." As far as I know it is true that this was one of the requirements. > 1. Old AT&T cards are now being accepted by other carriers. I have The old AT&T cards are not accepted by other carriers. The LEC cards are accepted by the other carriers. They contain the same PIN as the AT&T card did. > 2. As metioned in the Digest already, with the new cards, billing will > be (I presume) handled by AT&T directly and thus no (costly) > arrangements with the RBOCs need to be in place. The new cards will be billed along with your AT&T 1+ charges to the LEC if that is where you requested billing.
andys@ulysses.att.com (06/17/91)
In article <telecom11.457.3@eecs.nwu.edu> is written: > I'm not convinced. I think there are two basic reasons for why they > did this: > 1. Old AT&T cards are now being accepted by other carriers. I have > been billed by all sort of outfits from MCI to Joe Random carrier by > simply using the good 'ol 10-digit + PIN scheme. AT&T obviously hates > this and wants the new "proprietary cards" to secure their revenue. Please note that it is not just a matter of securing our revenues. Consider this: every time a customer thinks they are using an "AT&T Card" and gets billed by an AOS it creates a customer relations problem for AT&T with "brand loyal" customers. Many of these customers have a hard time understanding that use of the LEC issued billing number is not under AT&T's control, even though the number appears on a credit card with the AT&T logo on it. The best way to deal with that is to issue card numbers that AT&T *does* control. There has been overwhelming customer unhappiness with the old calling card scheme that left them with big charges from companies with whom they had no intention of doing business. Yes the new system is good for AT&T. It is also good for most customers. > 2. As metioned in the Digest already, with the new cards, billing will > be (I presume) handled by AT&T directly and thus no (costly) > arrangements with the RBOCs need to be in place. The new calling cards (other than Universal Cards) do *not* change the method of billing. Billing methods are determined by the ultimate billing telphone number for your AT&T account. In most LATAs residence billing is still handled by sending call detail back to the LEC to bill. Changes to the billing system are a separate issue. What *does* change is the customer-supplier relationship for card verification services. Instead of buying verification from the LEC for use of their card numbers on long distance calls, for the new cards AT&T will sell verification for it's card numbers when used for local calls. Yes, this is a cost saving. This is bad? |> Anybody know how much of a "grace period" they are going to give us |> with the old cards? I assume that a valid LEC card number will always be accepted, but I have no good information on this. 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!
Ken Abrams <kabra437@athenanet.com> (06/18/91)
In article <telecom11.451.2@eecs.nwu.edu> andys@ulysses.att.com writes: > In article <telecom11.449.2@eecs.nwu.edu> you write: > Obviously, you missed the followup traffic from AT&T people, including > me, on this. AT&T now buys card verification services from the LECs Apparently I did miss some articles. I didn't even see MY post and only realized it had been published when I started receiving mail. > 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. I have received about five mail messages and have seen a couple of posts but so far, nobody has been able to tell me what the "government rules" are which "forced" AT&T to make this change (or so the literature implied). Some folks have been nice enough to tell me what the "real" reasons are for the change. Why were some of those things not mentioned in the announcement instead of the tripe about government rules?? I dislike being deceived even more than I dislike shoddy service! Several people have mentioned that the "old" (LEC) card number will still work for some unknown period of time. If this is true, the (potential) confusion with OCCs will still exist. I strongly suspect that there will be a cut-off for using the old numbers and it will not be in the too distant future. To achieve some of the aforementioned benefits, AT&T must stop accepting the LEC card numbers. After this happens, I suspect the the RBOCs will stop accepting AT&T cards for local calls since they will then be paying to access AT&T's data base for verification. The business benifits for AT&T are fairly obvious; the benefits to the consumer are not quite so obvious, however. As long as I can place a credit card call to my home number by dialing only 4 additional digits, I will stay with AT&T. If, and when, they force me to use the new number, my decision will probably go the other way if I can find a carrier that will let me use my phone number for credit card calls. Ken Abrams nstar!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965
andys@ulysses.att.com (06/19/91)
In article <telecom11.467.4@eecs.nwu.edu> kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: > I have received about five mail messages and have seen a couple of > posts but so far, nobody has been able to tell me what the "government > rules" are which "forced" AT&T to make this change (or so the > literature implied). Some folks have been nice enough to tell me what > the "real" reasons are for the change. Why were some of those things > not mentioned in the announcement instead of the tripe about > government rules?? I dislike being deceived even more than I dislike > shoddy service! What we all gave you were lots of good reasons for AT&T to start using its own card numbers, even if there were no regulatory considerations. However, there is one. In short, the FCC says we have to issue cards with our own card numbers on them or get out of the card issuing business. Currently, under the terms of Shared Network Access Facility Arrangements (SNAFA) set forth by the FCC, AT&T and RBOCS are allowed to share the database and credit card numbers used for card validation. As of 1/1/92, the SNAFA come to an end, and the RBOCS *MUST* use their own database for their own cards and AT&T *MUST* use its own database for its own cards (or get out of the card business). I think that the RBOCs and AT&T are free to sell each other verification services for calls carried by one and billed to the others card, so an RBOC Calling Card should still be able to be used for AT&T calls, just as your Universal Card can be used for RBOC carried calls. Nobody is deceiving you. Come 1/1/92, any card issued by AT&T must have a different number from a card issued by the LECs. I've not seen the announcement that came with the cards, but I gather it wasn't detailed. But explaining all that stuff in the above paragraph to the general consumer LD marketplace (as opposed to Telecom Digest readers) is not an easy task. If you tell too little you get flamed in the Digest. If you tell too much, you confuse an awful lot of people with information they neither want nor need. The statement that new card numbers are being issued because of new regulatory requirements is complete and accurate. Now, if *I* were writing the enclosure, I'd sure put an "and by the way, you get these benefits as a side effect" paragraph and make it clear that local calls can be charged to the new AT&T card. But that's just a quibble. The enclosure was honest, after all (as I always hoped and expected of my employer). I hope that this can put the deception issue out to pasture once and for all. > Several people have mentioned that the "old" (LEC) card number will > still work for some unknown period of time. If this is true, the > (potential) confusion with OCCs will still exist. I strongly suspect > that there will be a cut-off for using the old numbers and it will not > be in the too distant future. To achieve some of the aforementioned > benefits, AT&T must stop accepting the LEC card numbers. After this > happens, I suspect the the RBOCs will stop accepting AT&T cards for > local calls since they will then be paying to access AT&T's data base > for verification. As I pointed out to you in private mail, unless the FCC forbids it, I'd imagine that any IXC would want to accept LEC-issued cards to pick up casual business from people who have other Dial-1 carriers. The major business benefits from the new cards in terms of relationships with regular customers still applies. Depending on the nature of the regulations, I doubt that the LECs would stop using AT&T and/or OCC verification services out of pique. They risk pissing off too many people. > The business benifits for AT&T are fairly obvious; the benefits to the > consumer are not quite so obvious, however. As long as I can place a > credit card call to my home number by dialing only 4 additional > digits, I will stay with AT&T. If, and when, they force me to use the > new number, my decision will probably go the other way if I can find a > carrier that will let me use my phone number for credit card calls. In the absence of any regulations, the consumer still benefits from protection against inadvertant AOS billing. Given the volume of customer complaints on this issue, AOS billing to what customers *thought* was and AT&T card is a customer relations problem, not to mention lost revenue. But it is good for the consumers to know that they can control with whom they do business by what card they use, which they cannot with the old cards. But all that is beside the point, in a way. The Feds require the change. This is just why it would be a good thing to do anyway. 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! [But the regulatory information did come from reliable sources]
Skip Collins <collins@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> (06/19/91)
Andy Sherman writes: > In the absence of any regulations, the consumer still benefits from > protection against inadvertant AOS billing. Given the volume of > customer complaints on this issue, AOS billing to what customers > *thought* was and AT&T card is a customer relations problem, not to > mention lost revenue. But it is good for the consumers to know that > they can control with whom they do business by what card they use, > which they cannot with the old cards. Couldn't consumers control with whom they do business by using carrier access codes such as 10ATT, 10222 etc.? Why do we need separate cards and separate numbers to carry around and remember? If I have a 14 digit account number which is recognized by all the LD carriers that I access via 10XXX, I'm happy. This is exactly what I have now with my LEC card. I hope I am not forced to switch. Skip Collins, collins@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
Brian Charles Kohn <bicker@hoqax.att.com> (06/20/91)
In article <telecom11.470.8@eecs.nwu.edu> collins@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Skip Collins) writes: > Couldn't consumers control with whom they do business by using carrier > access codes such as 10ATT, 10222 etc.? No. > Why do we need separate cards > and separate numbers to carry around and remember? If I have a 14 > digit account number which is recognized by all the LD carriers that I > access via 10XXX, I'm happy. This is exactly what I have now with my > LEC card. I hope I am not forced to switch. As previously stated, you will be able to take your chances with your current LEC card and selecting your long distance carrier via 10XXX. However, almost none of the privately-owned coin phones in my area accept 10XXX, and those that do accept the code ignore it. Of course I refuse the charges on my bill from AOSs that steal my business in this way, however it is a hassle convincing NJ Bell that I am in my rights. (Which is strange because they rarely give he a hard time when there's an errant LOCAL charge on my bill ... I guess that's because it's easier for them to fix their own problems that it is to fix AOS's problems.) Related quetsion: What obligation to AOSs have currently to provide access to "the big three" via 10XXX? Can I request a phone be taken out of service if it doesn't respond to the code and the AOS operator cannot connect me to AT&T directly? Brian Charles Kohn AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center Quality Management System E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM) Consultant PHONE: (908) 949-5850 FAX: (908) 949-7724