telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) (06/30/90)
In recent issues of the Digest, people have mentioned their inability to use the AT&T Calling Card from certain payphones in the United States to call certain foreign countries. Sometimes payphones reject credit card calls to one country, while allowing the same type of call to other countries. Is this sort of red-lining legal? Is it discriminatory to block calls to, for example, Mexico or Colombia, while allowing the same payphone to handle calls to the UK or France? Is it discriminatory to allow residents in one part of town to make credit card calls from payphones while refusing other credit-worthy citizens in another neighborhood the right to do the same thing? Since the Universal Card is a bona-fide credit card (in addition to its role as a phone card), are there violations of Federal Trade Commission regulations when AT&T refuses to extend credit (in this case both as the credit grantor as well as the seller) based on arbitrary red-lining of certain neighborhoods? In a phone conversation Friday with AT&T Public Relations, I asked these questions and more. Someone is supposed to get back to me soon with answers. You will be the first to hear them, once I get back from out of town next week ... provided AT&T has replied. Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator
gutierre@noc.arc.nasa.gov (07/02/90)
In article <59816@bu.edu.bu.edu>, the TELECOM Moderator writes: |> In recent issues of the Digest, people have mentioned their inability |> to use the AT&T Calling Card from certain payphones in the United |> States to call certain foreign countries. |> Sometimes payphones reject credit card calls to one country, while |> allowing the same type of call to other countries. This is very true of MCI. The red-lining entirely depends on the amount of fraud traffic of the previous week that the security department catches. A good instance is San Francisco. They are red-lined to the Phillipines, and always have been for the last three years. This was because of the LARGE fraudulent calls to that country. But calling from across the bay (Oakland and Berkeley) will let you get to the Phillipines, since the red-lining is by switch, and the Hayward switch covers those cities. Now, if you called 800-950-1022, because of a quirk in the DMS-250's, those card calls had to go to the Dominguez Hills, CA. switch, in which they were not red-lining the Phillipines (as of a year ago). (The quirk, I was told, was that the DMS-250's cannot return tone on FGD's, which the 800 calls come in on, as opposed to FGB's, which the regular 950-XXXX calls come in on...). Oh, how do they determine, by the _week_, which is the highest fraud country??? Well, any calling-card international call over a set amount of minutes is automatically tagged, and the home phone number of the account in question is called. Well, if they're using a calling card to begin with, they're probably not home, so the card is cancelled until the account holder calls back. But when the account holder calls back, he/she finds out that the card can't be reinstated until 3am the next day, when the CAC's (Card Authorization Computers) update themselves for new calling card numbers. I heard AT&T does the same thing, but can reinstate in thirty minutes to one hour. Is that true? |> Is this sort of red-lining legal? Is it discriminatory to block calls |> to, for example, Mexico or Colombia, while allowing the same payphone |> to handle calls to the UK or France? Is it discriminatory to allow |> residents in one part of town to make credit card calls from payphones |> while refusing other credit-worthy citizens in another neighborhood |> the right to do the same thing? My understanding is that a calling card is a privlege, as opposed to direct-dial access (so called FGD access). |> ....Since the Universal Card is a |> bona-fide credit card (in addition to its role as a phone card), are |> there violations of Federal Trade Commission regulations when AT&T |> refuses to extend credit (in this case both as the credit grantor as |> well as the seller) based on arbitrary red-lining of certain |> neighborhoods? This one is a good question. How much liability has AT&T assumed when it issued VISA/MC credit cards, and allowed payments of your calls on them. Do they have a disclaimer in their FCC Tariff stating "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" in re: Calling Card calls. Again, C/C calls are tariffed, but are they a right, or a privlege? Robert [Moderator's Note: All extensions of credit are considered a privilege and not a 'right'; however, extensions or denials of credit must be based on *legal* criteria. I can deny you the privilege of credit because you have not the ability or willingness to pay your bills; but I cannot base my decision on your ethnic background or country of origin, which seems to be what telco is doing by denying (for example) Iranians the right to call their homeland from JFK; residents of Colombia from calling home from Miami, or Mexicans calling from southern California while allowing people of British origin to call the UK from the very same payphones. By the way, AT&T did not call me back today. PT]