telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) (11/04/90)
TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 Nov 90 17:37:00 CST Blocking LD Calls - Part II
Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson
Blocking of Long Distance Calls - Part II [Jim Schmickley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 90 16:56:48 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Subject: Blocking of Long Distance Calls - Part II
This is part two of two parts in this special issue. If you have not
yet read/received part one, please do so before reading this part.
Date: 22 Oct 90 18:23:00 CDT
From: JOHN WINSLADE <winslade@zeus.unomaha.edu>
Subject: Blocking of Long-Distance Calls - Part II
BLOCKING OF LONG-DISTANCE CALLS
by Jim Schmickley
Hawkeye PC, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
[Where we left off: Teleconnect had filed their response to the Iowa
Utilities Board. Their answer was that blocking had been going on for
almost a year!] .....
AN UNRESPONSIVE RESPONSE. Teleconnect's "response" to the Iowa
Utilities Board was filed July 29th. As anticipated, it was a mass of
vague generalities and unsubstantiated allegations. However, it
offered one item of new, and shocking, information; Curt Kyhl's BBS
had been blocked for ten months, from June 6, 1987 to mid-April 1988.
(At this point it should be noted that Teleconnect's customers had no
idea that the company was blocking some of our calls. We just assumed
that calls weren't going through because of Teleconnect's technical
problems.)
Teleconnect avoided putting any specific, or even relevant,
information in their letter. However, they did offer to whisper in
the staff's ear; "Teleconnect would be willing to share detailed
information regarding this specific case, and hacking in general, with
the Board's staff, as it has in the past with various federal and
local law enforcement agencies, including the United States Secret
Service. Teleconnect respectfully requests, however, that the board
agree to keep such information confidential, as to do otherwise would
involve public disclosure of ongoing investigations of criminal
conduct and the methods by which interexchange carriers, including
Teleconnect, detect such theft."
There is no indication of whether anyone felt that such a
"confidential" meeting would violate Iowa's Open Meetings Law. And,
nobody apparently questioned why, during a ten-months long "ongoing
investigation", Teleconnect seemed unable to determine the name of the
individual whose line they were blocking. Of course, whatever they
did was justified because (in their own words), "Teleconnect had
suffered substantial dollar losses as a result of the theft of long
distance services by means of computer 'hacking' utilizing the
computer billboard which is available at that number."
Teleconnect's most vile allegation was, "Many times, the hacker
will enter the stolen authorization code on computer billboards,
allowing others to steal long distance services by utilizing the
code." But no harm was done by the blocking of the BBS number
because, "During the ten month period the number was blocked,
Teleconnect received no complaints from anyone claiming to be the
party to whom the number was assigned." The fact that Curt Kyhl had
no way of knowing his line was being blocked might have had something
to do with the fact that he didn't complain.
It was also pointed out that I really had no right to complain
since, "First, and foremost, Mr. Schmickley is not the subscriber to
the number." That's true; I'm just a long-time Teleconnect customer
who was refused service because of an alleged act performed by an
unknown third party.
Then Teleconnect dumped on the Utilities Board staff a copy of a
seven page article from Business Week Magazine, entitled "Is Your
Computer Secure?" This article was totally unrelated to the theft of
long-distance service, except for an excerpt from a sidebar story
about a West German hackers' club. The story reported that, "In 1984,
Chaos uncovered a security hole in the videotex system that the German
telephone authority, the Deutsche Bundespost, was building. When the
agency ignored club warnings that messages in a customer's private
electronic mailbox weren't secure, Chaos members set out to prove the
point. They logged on to computers at Hamburger Sparkasse, a savings
bank, and programmed them to make thousands of videotex calls to Chaos
headquarters on one weekend. After only two days of this, the bank
owed the Bundespost $75,000 in telephone charges."
RESOLUTION WITH A RUBBER STAMP. The staff of the Iowa Utilities
Board replied to my complaint by letter on August 19th. They
apparently accepted the vague innuendo submitted by Teleconnect
without any verification; "Considering the illegal actions reportedly
to be taking place on number (319) 236-0834, it appears the blocking
was reasonable. However, we believe the Board should be notified
shortly after the blocking and permission should be obtained to
continue the blocking for any period of time."
However, it was also noted that, "Iowa Code 476.20 (1) (1987)
states, 'A utility shall not, except in cases of emergency,
discontinue, reduce, or impair service to a community or a part of a
community, except for nonpayment of account or violation of rules and
regulations, unless and until permission to do so is obtained from the
Board." The letter further clarified, "Although the Iowa Code is
subject to interpretation, it appears to staff that 'emergengy' refers
to a relatively short time..."
CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE. Since it appeared obvious that the
Utilities Board staff had not questioned or investigated a single one
of Teleconnect's allegations, the staff's response was absolutely
astounding. Accordingly, I filed a request for reconsideration on
August 22nd.
Three points were raised in the request for reconsideration: (1)
The staff's evaluation should have been focused on the denial of
service to me and countless others of Teleconnect's 200,000 customers,
and not just on the blocking of incoming calls to one BBS. (2) The
staff accepted all of Teleconnect's allegations as fact, although not
one bit of hard evidence was presented in support of those
allegations. (3) In the words of the staff's own citation, it
appeared that Teleconnect had violated Iowa Code 476.20 (1) (1987)
continuously over a ten months' period, perhaps as long as four years.
Since Teleconnect had dumped a seven page irrelevant magazine
article on the staff, it seemed only fair to now offer a two page
completely relevant story to them. This was "On Your Computer -
Bulletin Boards", from the June 1988 issue of "Changing Times". This
excellent article cited nine BBSs as "good places to get started".
Among the nine listed BBSs was Curt Kyhl's "Stock Exchange, Waterloo,
Iowa (319-236-0834)." Even the geniuses at Teleconnect ought to be
able to recognize that this BBS, recommended by a national magazine,
is the very same one they blocked for ten months.
ONCE MORE THROUGH THE DO-LOOP, THEN EXIT. The Utilities Board
Staff went through the same motions again, and came to the same
conclusion, again. Essentially, the staff concluded that, because
Teleconnect insisted that it had evidence to justify its actions, but
that evidence was competition-sensitive and could not be revealed,
the staff would have to "take Teleconnect's word for it" and uphold
the company's actions.
At this point it was painfully obvious that the staff of the
Utilities Board was more than willing to buy any vapor-ware
Teleconnect offered them. The only way to get the issue out of the
staff's hands and before the Iowa State Utilities Board was to request
a formal hearing. The request was filed.
FORMAL HEARING ORDERED. On November 2, 1988, the Board ordered
that the complaint be docketed for a formal hearing. After four
months, it was acknowledged that the "blocking" issue had sufficient
substance to merit a hearing. As of this date (November 15, 1988),
the case has not been assigned to an Administrative Law Judge, nor has
a hearing date been set.
THE SECOND FRONT OPENS. A few months ago, we were able to verify
that Teleconnect was blocking interstate (Iowa to Illinois, in this
case) calls, and a complaint was filed with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). In late October, the FCC informed Teleconnect of
the complaint, and ordered Teleconnect to respond.
While it appears that this also could be a slow process, it is
expected that the FCC will much more responsive that the staff of the
Iowa Board, for whom this was a very new issue. In addition,
Congressman Tom Tauke has expressed his interest in the matter. Mr.
Tauke, representing the Second District of Iowa (including Cedar
Rapids), is a member of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, and
was recently reelected for a sixth term.
Recently, we have been able to verify that Teleconnect is
blocking two other eastern BBS lines. It might be possible to use
these verifications to establish a pattern to escalate the FCC
complaint to formal complaint status.
STATUS. And now, as of November 15, 1988, here's where we are:
We are starting to prepare questions for an interrogatory to
Teleconnect for the Iowa hearing. Finally, after six months, we
finally have hopes of getting straight answers (or even any answer) to
questions on blocking. We will try to keep you informed (through
BBSs, etc.) about the hearing date, as soon as it is scheduled, and
other developments.
We are also beginning to run up some expenses, and need the help
of concerned groups and individuals in defraying expenses in this
fight for communications freedom. An expense fund has been authorized
by Hawkeye PC, and will be administered by the treasurer.
Contributions are requested to be sent to: Hawkeye PC Users' Group,
Anti-Blocking Expense Fund, c/o Pat Alden, Treasurer, 840 Maggard,
Iowa City, Iowa 52240.
The complaint on the interstate aspect of the blocking problem is
just beginning to slowly wend its way through the FCC.
Teleconnect has effectively completed its merger. Now, it is a
major component of a new company, Telecom*USA, which is the fourth
largest American long-distance company. This company now has
long-distance operations in over half of the states plus the District
of Columbia.
Curt Kyhl, whose Stock Exchange BBS was blocked by Teleconnect
for ten months (June 1987 to April 1988) even though they didn't even
know his name, has accepted a new business opportunity and moved to
Des Moines. Curt is now operating his excellent BBS at (515)
226-0680.
And, in an unexpected development, Teleconnect Vice President for
Customer Service, Dan Rogers, has requested an opportunity to discuss
the company's "blocking policy". He is scheduled to do so at Hawkeye
PC's November 28th meeting in Iowa City.
UPDATE, January 4, 1989:
Dan Rogers addressed Hawkeye PC in Iowa City on Nov. 28th. To
summarize, the assembled members did NOT accept Teleconnect's
explanation that blocking was necessary to protect revenues for the
good of all their customers. The assembled group included
professional people, university students, and four Sysops, Ben
Blackstock, Al Chapman, John Friel III (author of QModem), and John
Oren. It appeared Dan Rogers was impressed by the fact that this was
not a group of hackers (a term which Teleconnect had been bandying
about rather freely.) The high point of the evening was an eloquent
sermon delivered by John Oren, in which he pointed that the idea of
"the greater good of all" to the disadvantage of individuals did not
work for Immanuel Kant, and it certainly wasn't going to play for
Teleconnect.
On December 19, 1988 Bruce Wilson and I participated in a
pre-hearing conference before an administrative law judge in Des
Moines as the initial step in the formal complaint procedure with the
Iowa Utilities Board. Casey Mahon, Teleconnect's senior vice
president and general counsel, represented the company. Curt Kyhl,
Sysop of the Stock Exchange BBS, attended as a very interested
observer. The judge gave instructions to the attorneys to reduce the
significant points of the case to writing and report back to him on
January 18, 1989. He also suggested that a rules-making procedure
would be in order to establish rules by which the Utilities Board
could decide any future cases of this type which it might encounter.
Bruce Wilson had already prepared a rules-making petition for filing
at a later time. (The rules-making petition will be filed as soon as
this complaint is resolved.)
Following the conference, Bruce Wilson, Casey Mahon, Curt Kyhl,
and I met informally and discussed possible resolution of the
complaint. There is a reasonable expectation of reaching an "out of
court" resolution of the issue without compromising the principles
involved. Regrettably, however, nothing further along the line of a
settlement has occurred in the ensuing two weeks.
On December 22, 1988, I set up my computer in the offices of
Teleconnect, and demonstrated communication via modem to Dan Rogers
and some of his security staff. The intent was to make those people
much more knowledgable of modems and BBSs, and they seemed to be
genuinely impressed by the professional quality of the boards I
called. We also had an extensive discussion on the high standards,
caller verification, and self-regulation practiced by the Sysops.
Meanwhile, in Washington, Teleconnect's D.C. law firm had replied
to the FCC on the interstate blocking complaint I had filed. The
response was, unfortunately, a rehash of the same generalizations and
pleas of "revenue loss" which they had submitted to the Iowa Utilities
Board. The FCC has not acted yet, but there is some indication that
they recognize that they have never before received a complaint of
this type, and it could become a precedent setter to some extent.
And, the situation is now receiving national publicity. Senior
Editor Art Brodsky of "Communications Daily" read about it on a BBS,
and contacted me for more information, as well as checking with the
FCC. He wrote an excellent article which was published on December
16th. Dana Blankenhorn picked up on Mr. Brodsky's article and
published an item in NEWS BYTES, an on-line service of The Source. It
appears now that other publications will also pick up the story.
Meanwhile, we are preparing to continue with the formal hearing
before the Iowa Utilities Board's administrative law judge.
------------------
[Moderator's Note: My thanks to Mr. Winslade for sending this along.
Now we need an update: what has happened over the past two years? We
know of course that Telecom*USA is now part of MCI.
I am still hearing complaints about AT&T's practice of illegally
blocking traffic which they suspect -- but cannot prove! -- is being
originated fraudulently. They are continuing to deny service on
selected international calls where their own credit card is used for
billing purposes. Like Teleconnect, they are deceptive in how they
discuss their activities: they blame the local telco for blocking the
call; they claim the foreign telephone administration told them to do
it; etc, or sometimes they flatly deny doing it. Maybe eventually the
FCC will get involved with this also. But let's face it: no one likes
to go against AT&T. It is a long, very expensive and time-consuming
process, just like the complaints filed against little Teleconnect, an
organization only a fraction of AT&T's size. But now and then, people
do buck AT&T and win.
Then we had (still have?) Sprint taking it upon themselves to decide
who can and cannot use their card by blocking payphones in New York's
Port Authority terminal. This whole matter, of long distance
companies -- common carriers under law -- selectively blocking out
calls they don't want to handle is one that needs review and
adjudication by the FCC on a timely basis. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest Special Issue: Blocking LD Calls: Part II
******************************