telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (06/13/85)
From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>
TELECOM Digest Wed, 12 Jun 85 17:28:24 EDT Volume 4 : Issue 200
Today's Topics:
Administrivia - TELECOM is moving
Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #199
Need help stopping telephone harrassment
RFI Interference and 1200-bps Modems
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 85 17:24:15 EDT
From: Jon Solomon <jsol@bbncca.ARPA>
Subject: Administrivia - TELECOM is moving
To: telecom@bbncca.arpa
TELECOM is moving from its current address on BBNCCA to MIT-XX.
The pointer on MIT-MC will reflect this change, and so will
the BBNCCA (or any BBN unix system) pointer, but if you use some
other pointer it might not work.
TELECOM-REQUEST@MIT-XX and TELECOM@MIT-XX have been created.
The software is not completely ready to support generating digests
so if you do send mail to MIT-XX right now, I will probably forward it
to BBNCCA and continue to process TELECOM from there. Watch for
the new location in the header of the digest, and when it is ready
I will send out another administrivia note.
If you send something to either address and you don't see it in
three days time published in the digest, please resend the mail.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 85 19:38:49 edt
From: Michael Grant <mgrant@gyre>
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #199
Regarding privacy on cellular phones, I'd be interested to hear about the
new digital coding techniques that the cellular phone companies are
talking about adding soon. They say that it would be an additional
plug in module to the already existing units. Would it be possible to
overhear a key, and decode a conversation? What kind of encoding would
they be doing?
-Mike
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 6 June 1985 05:55-MDT
From: Donn Seeley <donn@UTAH-CS.ARPA>
Subject: Need help stopping telephone harrassment
I have a friend (who shall remain nameless, for reasons that will
become obvious below) who has been subjected to some very
sophisticated telephone harrassment. He doesn't have net access and
has asked me to try to use some of the immense combined experience of
the net to help him get to the bottom of his problems.
My friend has a son of high school age who likes to play with
computers. The family has an Apple computer and a modem at home, and
the son uses it to dial in to various bboards in the area of his
suburban home in California. It seems that one day the son attempted
to bluff his way onto a phone phreak bboard. This was a mistake --
the boy was in way over his head, and when the bboard operators
learned this, they decided to teach him a lesson. My friend's long
distance access code very rapidly propagated around the state and some
ridiculous charges began appearing on his monthly bills. At the same
time he began receiving harrassing phone calls -- the phone would ring
during dinner or in the middle of the night, and when someone answered
it, no one would be on the other end.
After a couple months of this, my friend asked Pac Tel to trace the
harrassing phone calls. The nature of the calls changed; perhaps the
son bragged about it to classmates or acquaintances on bboards, but
the bad guys heard about it and the callers began to say things. They
said that they would vandalize my friend's property and that they
would assault his son, and eventually they began making death threats.
Pac Tel stalled on the traces; in the end they said that they couldn't
release the information that they had gathered because regulations
required that at least three of the calls had to originate from the
same number, and somehow this was not the case. My friend was puzzled
about the rule, but he was even more puzzled about the fact that the
calls seemed to come from different numbers... He and his family
began to get rather nervous, although the violence remained verbal.
My friend decided to do some investigating of his own and called up
some of the numbers that appeared on his long distance bill. Many of
them turned out to be recordings of various kinds, such as
'dial-a-porn'; a few of them turned out to be homes with teenagers,
and the latter readily admitted that they had been given the access
code and told to 'get this guy', and to spread the number far and
wide. Since it was clear that the original perpetrators could not be
traced through the long distance company, my friend changed his access
code and managed to convince the company to forgive the bogus charges.
Following this move the problems with long distance went away.
At about this time the harrassing phone calls stopped too. My friend
isn't sure whether this was a result of the bad guys hearing about his
investigation through the grapevine, or whether Pac Tel was getting
warm, but he was grateful regardless. Unfortunately this wasn't the
end of his problem. When he got his phone bill at the end of the
month, he discovered that he was being charged for hundreds of dollars
worth of bogus toll calls through Pac Tel, all made in his local area
code. Apparently all of the many numbers called were recordings, so
there was no one on the other end who could be asked about the calls.
Pac Tel said that the calls originated from his residential phone, but
it was quite clear that no one in the household could possibly be
doing it. The family kept logs of where all its members were for
periods of weeks at a time, and these showed that the calls were being
made when the house was empty, or when the family was eating dinner
and so on. Peculiarly, some of the numbers were called as many as 8
times in a single minute, which suggested that the caller was using an
auto-dialer (my friend does not own one) and that the calls were being
made to accumulate charges rather than to listen to the recordings.
On the basis of this evidence Pac Tel traced the house's local loop,
but could find no indication that it had been compromised in any way.
Pac Tel now steadfastly maintains that there is no other way of making
a call appear to originate from the residence's phone. After several
months of wrangling, Pac Tel sent its own investigator to look at the
case. After one phone call to my friend and three days of
'investigation', Pac Tel's man announced that my friend's son was
responsible for all the calls, and that my friend was liable for the
thousands of dollars worth of bogus calls that had been made over the
previous eight months.
My friend, at his wits' end, tried contacting the FBI. They heard him
out and told him that because none of the bogus calls at any stage of
the case had crossed state lines, they had no jurisdiction. (My
friend's heart sank when he realized that that the bad guys must have
thought of this in advance...) The FBI suggested that my friend call
the PUC. This turned out to be a joke -- my friend couldn't even get
past the secretary. My poor friend is now at the stage of hiring a
lawyer and preparing for the inevitable... Meanwhile the bogus calls
continue, taunting him.
My friend and I can use any information you might have on how a stunt
like this could be perpetrated -- how can you make calls appear to
come from another number? We don't need or want precise details on
how to beat the system; we just need enough to convince Pac Tel (or
(sigh) a judge) that there is an alternative explanation for the
calls...
Any help you can give would be deeply appreciated,
Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@utah-cs.arpa
40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 decvax!utah-cs!donn
PS -- If you have something you'd prefer to communicate in person, and
you'll be attending the Usenix conference, by all means contact me
there.
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 10 June 1985 11:32-MDT
From: Bob Russes <decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-argus!russes@Ucb-Vax.ARPA>
Subject: RFI Interference and 1200-bps Modems
*** HELP! ***
I need advice in selecting a 1200-bps modem. I need a modem
which is able to withstand the RFI interference from a 50,000 watt AM
broadcast station which is located approximately 1-2 miles from my
home.
I currently have a Digital DF03 modem for use at home.
However, given the amount of RFI interference at my location, it is
effectively useless.
Any suggestions would be **greatly** appreciated!! Should you
need any other information, please ask!
Bob
Usenet: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-argus!russes
USPS: Bob Russes Telephone: (617)-467-8365
Digital Equipment Corporation
67 Forest Street -- IND-3/C10
Marlboro, MA 01752-9116
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
******************************telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (06/14/85)
From: Moderator <Telecom-REQUEST@MIT-XX.ARPA>
TELECOM Digest Thursday, June 13, 1985 7:28PM
Volume 4, Issue 200
Today's Topics:
Cellular Roaming Problems (resolution).
TELECOM Digest V4 #200 - Telephone Harassment - Revisited
[Thanks to SRA@XX we are running with new Digest software. Bugs to
TELECOM-REQUEST@MIT-XX. Note, TELECOM@XX and TELECOM-REQUEST@XX
are now the official addresses of TELECOM. Mail to BBNCCA will
be forwarded back here. --JSol]
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: ihnp4!pesnta!peora!jer@Berkeley
Date: Wednesday, 12 Jun 1985 16:52-EDT
To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA
Subject: Re: Cellular phones and confidentiality
In-reply-to: USENET article <8055@ucbvax.ARPA>
Aside from the fact that you CAN allegedly monitor cellular telephone
communications, is it legal to do so? It had been my understanding that
a "Secrecy of Communications Act" existed which made it illegal to monitor
any radio communications other than those in the commercial and amateur
radio bands. (The exact wording probably restricted it further, since
I first heard of it in reference to the alleged illegality of monitoring
subsidiary carrier broadcasts from commercial radio stations.)
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"Gnyx gb gur fhayvtug, pnyyre..."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13 Jun 1985 08:59-PDT
Subject: Cellular Roaming Problems (resolution).
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff@SRI-CSL.ARPA>
Before the
FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washigton, D.C. 20554
In re )
)
NEW ORLEANS CGSA, INC. ) File No. 27012-CL-C-84
Licensee of Domestic Cellular )
Radio Telecommunications Service )
Station KNKA 224, at New Orleans, )
Louisiana
TO: Chief, Common Carrier Bureau
REPLY TO EMERGENCY PETITION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELIEF FROM LICENSEE
RULE VIOLATION IN REFUSING TO
PROVIDE SERVICE TO ROAMERS
--------------------------
New Orleans CGSA, Inc. and BellSouth Mobility Inc ( "BMI"),
parent corporation of New Orleans CGSA, Inc. (collectively,
"Respondents"), by their attorneys, hereby submit their response to
the above-styled Emergency ptition filed by or on behalf of Geoffrey
S. Goodfellow and Dwight F. Hare ( collectively, "Petitioners") in
this matter, dated May 17, 1985. Respondents respectfully submit
that, contrary to the assertions of the Petitioners, there has been no
"willful refusal" to provide them with roamer service on the New
Orleans cellular system, and no "willful violation"" of Section
22.911(b) of the Commission's Rules.
When Mr. Goodfellow contacted BMI seeking to arrange for
roamer service in New Orleans, he was correctly informed by both a
customer service representative and by Mr. Tony Walker that roamer
service (as it is presently conceived, i.e., via credit card or
automatic roaming intercarrier agreements) was not available in New
Orleans because of state regulatory considerations arising out of the
currently applicable tariffs adopted by the Louisiana Public Service
Commission governing the provision of cellular service in New Orleans.
Implementig a separate roamer service offering is a vastly
complex undertaking and until very recently the various technical,
engineering, billig and administrative difficulties combined to
frustrate the development of the mechanisms necessary to support the
provision of roamer service as a separate and distinct category of
service offering. Only within the past several weeks have enough of
these complicated billing, administrative and other hurdles been
overcome by BMI and some other cellular system operators so as to
permit BMI to begin executing intercarrier roamer service agreements
and implementing separate roamer service offerings in its various
cellular systems. Many other carriers around the country are still
unable to provide or support such separate roamer service.
Back when the New Orleans cellular system became operational
and the tariffs relating thereto were filed and accepted by the
Louisiana Public Service Commission, these problems had not been
resolved and the cellular industry had not developed to the point
where the manner in which roamer service would ultimately be provided
could be adequately determined. As a result, the presently applicable
tariffs in New Orleans make no provision for roamer service as a
separate category from regular home subscriber service.
Mr. Walker also correctly informed Mr. Goodfellow that
revisions to the applicable tariffs were being prepared and were
expected to be filed soon. Although the exact date of the projected
filing of these tariff revisions and their proposed effective date
were not known at the time of Mr. Walker's conversation with Mr.
Goodfellow, these tariff revisions were in fact filed with the
Louisiana Public Service Commission on May 21, 1985, and are proposed
to become ef fective on June 2, 1985. In any event, as an interim
solution in an effort to accomodate the petitioners' desire to obtain
cellular service in New Orleans while remaining in compliance with the
applicable tariffs, Mr. Walker offered to arrange for service to be
provided to Petitioners essentially as if they were regular home
subscribers for the one month minimum period prescribed in the tariff.
Mr. Walker even offered to help arrange any reprogramming of the
Petitioners' cellular radiotelephone units which might be necessary.
As the foregoing clearly demonstrates, there has been no
"willful" or "absolute" refusal by Respondents to provide service to
the Petitioners on the New Orleans cellular system. Respondents
offered and remained willing to provide such service to Petitioners in
a manner which complies with state law and applicable tariffs. Thus,
there has been no violation, willful or otherwise, of the Commission's
Rules.
Furthemore, Respondents have been informed by the Louisiana
Public Service Commission ("LPSC" that the revised tariffs filed by
Respondents providing for a separate roamer service offering have been
accepted, to become effective June 2, 1985. Respondents have asked
the LPSC to advance the effective date of the revised tariffs to May
25, 1985, and have been informed that the LPSC has agreed to that
request. Written confirmation of the acceptance of the earlier
effective date is expected from the LPSC shortly and will be filed
with the Commission in this matter under separate cover.
Therefore, roamer service can be provided to the ptitioners in
accordance with the revised tariffs during the time period requested.
As a result of these developments, the Emergency Petition is moot.
For the reasons set forth above, the Petitioners are not
entitled to any of the relief sought in the and foresaid Emergency
Petition, and such petition should be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted,
NEW ORLEANS CGSA, INC.
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY INC
BY:_____________________
Martin C. Ruegsegger
BellSouth Mobility Inc.
2030 Powers Ferry Road
Suite 500 ________________________
Atlanta, Georgia 30339 D. Scott Stenhouse
(404) 951-3600
Attorneys for Respondents
Dated: May 23, 1985
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13 Jun 85 09:41:18 PDT (Thursday)
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #200 - Telephone Harassment - Revisited
From: Cottriel.ES@Xerox.ARPA
Don,
If your friend's local loop terminates in an PAC-TEL ESS office,
(i.e. a computer driven Electronic Switch as opposed to a mechanical
switching arrangement), and given the aptitude of the parties involved,
it is entirely feasable that somebody knows the architecture of that
switch, and could therefore ~create~ phony calls, by merely telling the
switch to make the call. This could be done from anywhere, if the person
or persons involved, knew enough about Pac-Tel's network architecture.
It's even more feasable, that no calls were ever actually made, and the
bogus billing reflects a simple data base compromise by the parties in
question.
One way to gather evidence that your friend did not make these calls,
is to order a second phone service. The second service should be used
in place of the first for his/her daily requirements for phone service.
Have him order it under an assumed name and make sure it's unlisted.
Then short out the pair on the old service and leave it that way for
whatever period of time is necessary to prove that no use could possibly
have been originated from your friends house. If your friend starts
seeing bogus charges on the new line, then that should indicate to PAC-TEL
that somewhere in their system, they have a few holes, and somebody found
them. Of course, they already know this, but they can't admit it because
it would create mass unrest with all of their clients.
No computer system is 100% secure!
(But that's another subject...for another day...)
Good-luck,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
[End of TELECOM Digest]