glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) (11/16/90)
In RISKS-FORUM Digest 10.60, Jerry Glomph Black <black@MICRO.LL. MIT.EDU> writes: [concerning Sprint's FONCARD:] >Sometimes it's annoying to dial 11 digits of access >code(1-800-877-8000), then the 11 digits of the destination number, then the >bloody 14-digit number. My wife refuses to do this, so we got an AT&T card, >where all you have to remember is FOUR DIGITS (tacked on to your 10-digit home >number, which you presumably know). Anybody know why Sprint didn't just adopt >this method? I believe that AT&T offers two different kinds of calling cards. One kind is "anchored" to your home phone number - the first ten digits of the calling card number are the same ten digits which make up your home phone number. Then other ("unanchored") type is similar to Sprint's card in that the numbers on the card are "random". This means that you can get an AT&T calling card even if you don't have a private phone number. For some reason, all Sprint calling cards seem to be "unanchored". Does anyone know why Sprint chose to use "unanchored" cards? Corrections are welcomed. Glenn F. Leavell glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu 404-542-3488 Systems Administrator University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602
glenn@sirius.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) (11/21/90)
I recently posted an article to the TELECOM Digest in which I stated (although I welcomed corrections) that it was my belief that Sprint used "unanchored" calling cards, i.e. the calling card numbers did not contain the owners own telephone number. John R. Levine (johnl@iecc. cambridge.ma.us) was kind enough to reply: >I have Sprint FON cards for each of my two lines. Both of them are >"anchored," i.e. they are the corresponding phone number with a PIN. I >don't recall asking one way or the other. >Sprint doesn't seem to assign scrambled numbers based on the fraud >potential, I live in Cambridge, Mass., one of the phone hackery capitals >of the world. Perhaps it's because I'm a Dial-1 customer. It seems then that Sprint, like AT&T offers both the "anchored" and "unanchored" cards. I also am a Sprint Dial-1 customer, but my FON card number is "random," i.e. it means nothing to me (except that it's my calling card number!). Perhaps this is because I was a FON card customer long before I ever had Sprint as my primary long distance carrier. As a matter of fact, my first card was with US Telecom. After the merger (buyout?) to US Sprint it became a FON Card. Another question: John mentions that the fraud potential is higher with the "unanchored" cards. Is this really so? I would think that it would be much easier to figure out the last four digits that need to be appended to a known phone number than to come up with fourteen random digits that happen to be valid. Again, thanks for any responses, Glenn F. Leavell Systems Administrator glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu 404-542-3488 University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602