TELECOM Digest Fri, 7 Oct 94 15:40:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 391 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Chicago Taking Out Payphones (USA Today via Will Martin) IBX System (Zanna Martin) Question About AMI Modulation (despatie@hookup.net) Re: "Sprint Check/160 Days" (DICKTER@delphi.com) Re: Area Code Info Needed (Wes Leatherock) Re: OSI OM-Related Tools (Herb Calhoun) Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud (G. Youngblood) Re: Roaming Report - SF Bay Area to New Zealand via GTE (Greg Youngblood) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ********************************************************************** * * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ********************************************************************** * Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 13:55:24 GMT From: Will Martin Subject: Chicago Taking Out Payphones An article on the front page of the Wednesday, Oct 5 94 issue of {USA Today}: CHICAGO READY TO HANG UP ON CORNER DRUG DEALERS by Debbie Howlett The City Council, in an effort to pull the plug on street corner drug dealers, today votes on a sweeping ban on pay phones. The measure, proposed by Mayor Richard Daley and widely supported on the council, would disconnect as many as 15,000 of the 60,000 pay phones, mainly on the poorer South and West sides. "People are outraged. They see drug dealers using those phones 24 hours a day, seven days a week in front of their homes," Daley says. A South Side alderman and Ameritech, largest of 67 companies operating pay phones in the city, say the idea is superficial and disproportionately affects poor people. While 88% of city residents have phone service, barely one in five residents in some of the targeted areas do. In those areas, pay phones are lifelines, says Alderman Dorothy Tillman. Daley defends the ban as the solution for residents who are fed up with dealers; one group of neighbors counted 72 phones in a ten-block area. "You can get rid of every damn pay phone in the city," Tillman says. "It won't stop drug dealing." ***** That issue of {USA Today} also has a supplemental story on page 3A; here are excerpts: BUSY SIGNAL: PHONES AS CRIME CENTERS The pay phone hanging on the wall of the building near Nancy Glover's home on the West Side seemed oddly out of place. It faced a dark alley and wasn't very well lighted. She couldn't imagine who would use it. Within a week, she says, eight boys in gang colors were hanging out for hours, using the pay phone to return pages from their beepers. "It was a real problem," Glover says. .... [Deleted paragraphs that essentially repeated the first story.] Other measures aimed at the pay phone problem haven't been successful. Restrictions on incoming calls, tougher rules for phone companies, phones that don't take coins at night -- nothing curbed the crowds that gathered. Some of the dealers' favorite spots even seem tailored to their purpose: a bank of seven or eight phones set up over a vacant lot that offers an unobstructed view of police patrols. Daley's "ban" won't affect 75% of the city's 60,000 pay phones -- those inside an office, store, or other building. It will, however, allow the city to regulate phones on or overhanging public property. But the pay phone ban has several opponents -- including phone companies. Ameritech, the largest phone company in Illinois, stands to lose 3,000 phones and 80% of its pay phone revenues. [Concluding paragraphs cover statements from the alderman quoted in the first story and from the Ameritech spokesman to the effect that this action won't affect crime.] ***** [Editorial comment: Will this become known as the "Cellular Phone Windfall Act of 1994" in the future? Surely drug dealers can afford cellphones and they'll just switch over to those if they need phone communications ... I've never quite figured out why drug dealers need to make phone calls in the first place. It never struck me as a business conducted by phone-order ... :-) I always thought you needed to go in person with cash money. Can you call up and order by phone with your Visa or MC now? And how do drug dealers use beepers? Do they make house calls to deliver drugs like the pizza man? :-) Pat, please add a follow-up that tells what the result of the vote was, since this is local to you there ...] Regards, Will [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The final result was a hodge-podge; a stupid compromise which will help no one and hurt lots of people. The Chicago City Council has always been known for its corruption and stupid members, so this latest thing is not a big surprise. Now they have decided to ban public phones which are *outside, but on private property*, such as convenience store parking lots, etc. As the article points out, only about one in five residences on the west side of Chicago have private phone service. Too bad for them, eh? Question: How do you tell when a formerly great city is rapidly on the way to its death? Easy ... that's the time when the politicians and lawyer-judges become even more oppressive toward the few stable and tax-paying citizens still remaining. No industries want to set up factories and offices in your town? Then respond by taxing the hell out of the ones who do remain and putting all kinds of oppresive regulations in place against them. No large chain of stores wants to operate on the south and west sides of Chicago because of the high rate of very violent crime? That's cool ... just take the Korean merchants who are willing to operate there and oppress them severely instead; drive them out of business by government fiat and all kinds of cock-eyed regulations even the lawyers don't understand. Not that many parents left who want their kids to go to a public school if there is any possible way to avoid it? Don't worry, just take the few bright and intelligent children who are still in public schools and force them to be bussed ten miles each way through city traffic to a penitentiary masquerading as a public school on the other side of town. The longer the bus ride each day the less time there will be to spend in class and the more opportunity for the bus driver to sell them drugs and sexually molest them. Their parents will learn soon enough. It appears voter registration this time around is at an all-time low. Apparently only a few fools here are bothering to vote any longer. For the past couple months the newspapers and politicians have been exhorting people to register to vote, but it appears less than half the eligible voters have done so this time. Watching the political scene in Chicago is such a gas ... its only a matter of time until the city collapses. *GOD*, I am so glad I moved away a year ago. I would never move back to Chicago for any reason, even if I am only 20 miles or so north. I have to have a decent and safe place for our five-year old to live, and Chicago just won't do. So the payphone situation? What else is old? Just the dumbest (many have little formal education) and most criminal (a dozen members convicted and sent to prison in the past decade) bunch anywhere -- the Chicago City Council -- doing its thing. Not to worry though; there will still be outside payphones at the Chicago Housing Authority slums and the Transit Authority stations. Even though technically 'private property', the lawyers for the Housing Atrocity and the Transit Atrocity did a better job of sucking up to the Council than the lawyers for the Korean Merchants Association or the Chicagoland Association of Black McDonald's Restaurant Owners. Some outside payphones on private property will still remain if you say pretty-please and you allow them to have one hand in your pocket while the middle finger on their other hand is inserted somewhere else at the same time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: zanna@problem_with_inews_domain_file.et.tudelft.nl (Zanna Martin) Subject: IBX System Date: 7 Oct 1994 18:13:50 GMT Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering Anyone have any info on an IBX system by Intecom Inc? I am attempting to interface a modem this system and understand that an interface is available for $$$, however I want to do it myself ... any technical specs or schematic diagrams would be appreciated. Thanks, Tom ------------------------------ From: despatie@hookup.net Subject: Question About AMI Modulation Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 13:50:42 GMT Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, Oakville, Ontario, CANADA Does anyone have any information on AMI type modulation used on digital lines? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Oct 1994 11:39:01 EDT From: DICKTER@delphi.com Subject: Re: "Sprint Check/160 Days" As a copywriter assigned to a major L.D. account, I'm all too familiar with checks and their role in acqauiring new customers. Basically, no one can prevent a customer from switching to another lond distance copany -- on matter how scary the LOA language on the back of the check sounds. While these devices may sound is (as) if drafetred (drafted) my (by) a legal SWAT team, they are merely marketing attempts to keep churn levels douwn. Since AT&T fired the first check salvo two years ago, the check wars continue to breed a climate of switchers and money-seeking treasure hunters. And who can blame them? You get a check from one company, cash it, and two kweeks later you receive another check from the competition. You cash that, and the process starts anew. The result has been an eroding base of loyal customers -- and an unwillingness of customers to stay with one company and see how much they can save on savings programs., lower rates, etc. For marketers like myself, checks have served to frustrate long-term strategies and prevent other messages from entering the prospect's decision-making process. And while customers may think cahsing the check is a smart morve, the irony is that everyone (including them) ends up paying for it through more promo dollars being thrown against more and more check mailings. So what's the bottom line? It's time to stop using cash as the ultimate carrot-on-stick marketing tool -- and time to destroy the climate of switchers costing l.d. companies millins in misspent promo dollars and switching fees. In a better world, customers would choose a l.d. company based on benefits and savings -- then leave if those benefits were not begin provided or of (if) another companyu promises even o(more.) But that cannot happen until customers are refocused to look for comparitive strength and not the largest dollar amount on the "ay Pay to the order of" line. Ang again, no one can stop you from switching again -- but can you blame Sprint from trying to keep you around for a few months in the desparate hope that they can recover some of the expenses incurred in getting you through their door? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are correct that they cannot prevent you from switching carriers. What they can do, if it seems cost-effective and not counter-productive is sue you for breaking your promise to remain with them for some set period of time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wes.Leatherock@f2001.n147.z1.fidonet.org (Wes Leatherock) Date: 06 Oct 94 21:11:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Area Code Information Needed Organization: FidoNet Nameserver/Gateway Quoting Joseph Singer (joseph.singer@stage.com): ... [text deleted] ... > battery central offices. Also even the places that had DDD had > different procedures to access it. In many places such as New York > and New Jersey you would just dial the telephone number or an area > code plus phone number whereas most people dialed "1" plus a number > within an area code or 1 plus area code and phone number. Other > places had you dial 112 before the area codes while yet other > companies (mostly independents) made you dial extra digits. When Sherman, Texas, (served by GTE) originally went to DDD, you dialed 70 (seven zero) plus number or area code and number. Quoting Robert Casey: > Talking about area code history, I think NJ was all 201 a long time > ago. 201 is the lowest area code number, probably due to the fact that > there many Bell Labs sites in NJ, and probably the place where the area > code concept was developed was one of those. The area codes were originally assigned on the basis of the largest cities getting the lowest area codes. This was in the days of rotary dial, so a zero is actually ten, and 201 was not a low number. The lowest numbered area code (takes the fewest dial pulses) is 212 (211 was, of course, reserved for calling the long distance operator). New York City's area code was and is 212, of course. The next lowest numbers are 312 (which is Chicago) and 213 (which is Los Angeles). Quoting Bill Garfield (bill.garfield@yob.com): > Same here, except is was as late as 1966. I was working in > Scottsbluff, NE and carrying on a "LONG DISTANCE" relationship with a > young lady in Hoopeston, IL. It only took a few times calling before I > too was able to give the "route" to the LD operator... "2-1-7 > 2-8-3, 2-1-7 Plus 0-2-8 and the same for operators". Life > certainly seemed simpler back then. :-) The usual way this was given, I think, was (for example) "2-1-7 Plus 0-2-8 and the same for operators (pause) MARK 2-1-7 2-8-3." The originating operator actually dialed 217+028 and this sent the call to the Hoopeston operator, who would manually plug into the jack for the desired number or the desired operator (such as Directory Assistance). 217-283 was the assigned prefix for Hoopeston, and the operator marked the toll ticket (done by hand) with a conductive pencil in the bubbles for those numbers so it would be machine readable. Even though the prefix was assigned, Hoopeston was, obviously, not dialable as a manual office. If there was not a prefix assigned (either theoretical or future, the instruction would be "Mark 'Other Place'." (There was a bubble so named, and that would kick the ticket out to be rated and billed manually in the Telco accounting office.) There were places that the operator could dial but not the customer, for any one of a number of reasons, most commonly that there were not enough incoming trunks to meet the DDD standard for all- trunks- busy during the busy hour. In this case the instruction would be simply "2-1-7 Plus 283 PLUS." And there were various other combinations possible, including even the operator office being in another state (and with a different area code). Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu wes.leatherock@tranquil.torii.starship.com ------------------------------ From: calhoun@mot.com (Herb Calhoun) Subject: Re: OSI OM-Related Tools Organization: Motorola Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 18:23:07 GMT In article , andrew lavigne wrote: > I've been looking for information on the availability of OSI Object > Model Management-related toolkits and compilers (ASN.1/GDMO compilers, > object class inheritance display tools, browsers, etc). > Does anyone know of such tools and/or where I can get more information > on them? DSET provides a GDMO/ASN.1 raw compiler, as does RETIX. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud From: zeta@tcscs.com (Gregory Youngblood) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 94 09:46:07 PDT Organization: The Complete Solution TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > In certain other prominent e-journals on the Internet, we have read > in recent days that computer crime is not nearly the serious matter > the government claims it to be. It sounds to me like the sneak- thievery > of a hundred thousand plus calling card numbers and fifty million > dollars in phreak phone calls is serious enough. We have long known > about telco employees who themselves are as corrupt as the day is > long; who think nothing of taking bribes for providing confidential > information about their employer and its customers. But most of it > to-date has been petty ante stuff; a few dollars under the table for > a non-pub phone number, or maybe a hackerphreak who gets a job with > telco then uses information and technology at his (legitimate) disposal > to cover his own tracks where obscene/harassing calls are concerned. > But a hundred thousand calling cards and fifty million dollars in > traffic???? At what point are certain publishers/editors on the > Internet going to wake up? Computer crime is growing expotentially. > I think it is time to have another massive crackdown, similar to > Operation Sun Devil a few years ago. Let's start getting really > tough on hackers and phreaks. In this avenue I have to say that while I agree with the idea expressed here, lets not get carried away. Operation Sun Devil did it's good in that it caught and shut down a lot of hackers and phreaks ... but not without its mistakes. I notice you say similar to Operation Sun Devil. In what manner? If your going after phreaks (and some hackers who go along with the phreaking), then why not seed their files with bogus calling card numbers that various carriers agree to allow for this type of usage with the intent of letting the phreaks distribute that number. Then after a perioud of time, arrange a large scale bust arresting all those utilizing those seeded calling card numbers. In fact, why not take some of the known calling card numbers that have already been stolen, keep them in operation (though not for that customer but for this very purpose) so that way it adds another element to the sting ... actual live card numbers switched over from a customer as a sting rather than cutting the number off. It would seem that doing this would add even more risk to the phreaks since they would never know at what point the calling card was switched over etc. Perhaps I am just showing my own ignorance in the whole scene ... but large scale busts like Sun Devil will also pull in innocent people likely. I dont recall if Sun Devil was the operation that started the whole Jackson Games ordeal or if it was something else, but in any large scale operation like your proposing, the net will also fall around innocent people. Especially if the officers involved are not trained properly and dont really know what they are going after, which in high-tech crimes seems to be the case some of the time. That was particularly the problem with the Jackson Games mess ... (btw, how did that end? I saw a report or two from the trial, but I don't recall getting the final verdict and such ...) The large-scale computer crimes like this one are the ones the medias get a hold of and glamorize and exagerate the risks and potentials to mass audiences ... no wonder a lot of people are still afraid of computers. In this case, 100,000s of calling cards. Even from the glamorized reports of other capers, none seem to be as large-scale as this operation was. These large scale operations seem to be somewhat rare. But at least this one is shut down now. While I will agree computer crime is getting to be more of a problem and is growing, I also urge caution in how things are done to resolve it, especially in the spotlight of the media, and the public. Not to hide anything, but to prevent politicians from trying to protect us from ourselves in such a way that will hinder networks such as the Internet and others. With the information superhighway the buzzword in DC and with high press coverage of the exception rather than the norm, it can easily create more hassles and problems for (what I hope is) the majority of honest ones on the net, limiting or cutting off access entirely resources currently available. In short, I'm just urging caution in finding a solution to the problem of growing computer crime. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Roaming Report - SF Bay Area to New Zealand via GTE From: zeta@tcscs.com (Gregory Youngblood) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 94 10:04:21 PDT Organization: The Complete Solution > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An interesting new form of cellular > fraud came to my attention recently. It seems that many/most cellular > companies handle roamers by assigning them a temporary phone number > to use while in their territory. If you subscribe to a service such > as 'follow me' or Fast Track as Ameritech calls it, then when you > activate that feature in another city, the carrier in that city > assigns you a number and tells your home carrier what number is > to be used for call-forwarding purposes. Well ... it seems like some > carriers use the same old numbers over and over again for roamers > in their territory, and on those numbers for the sake of administrative > convenience, the ESN is not checked or verified like it would be for > their own customers with calls to/from their own numbers. So some > people have found that if you learn the block of numbers used by, > let's say, Cellular One Chicago over and over for roamers here, > all you need to do is program your own phone to one of those numbers > and make/receive calls with impunity at no charge. > > The same gag used to work with Radio Shack's cellular demo line. All > RS stores had a cellular phone number they could use to demo their > products. Any phone in their stock would work for the simple reason > the carrier did not verify the ESN ... how could they if the dealer > had dozens of phones in stock to be displayed, demoed and hopefully > sold? Of course since any phone in their stock could make calls when [Portion of R.S. summary deleted] > So phreaks began learning the phone numbers (a) used by the carriers > for day-to-day temporary assignment to roamers, (b) used for administrative > and testing purposes by the carrier itself, and (c) used by very large > dealers like Radio Shack for demonstrations. Needless to say, a good > time was had by all. There were limitations on the numbers which could > be dialed -- not technical limits, but certainly pragmatic considerations. > Radio station request lines, hotel switchboards, pay stations, etc; those > were all okay but never a call to a private residence or your home. > After all, when 'they' got a bellyfull of it, and got hit with loads > of long-distance and international calls, 'they' started auditing the > bills a little closer. Would you want 'them' to call your mother and > ask her who she spoke to in Kansas City on a cellular phone a month > ago? "... Just an error in our bookkeeping ma'm, we are trying to > straighten out the billing and get the bill to the right person ..." > and mom replies, "Oh! You must mean my son! .... such a good boy! > and so smart with computers and telephones .... " ... "Thank you > madam, that's all we need to know ...". None the less, I think the > scam is still going on where the roamer temporary numbers and the > carrier admin numbers are concerned. PAT] I have to jump in here ... it isn't often that I feel a need to jump in and clarify certain points. While I am not well versed on software and switches beyond a couple, I can tell you about the systems I've worked on and worked with. Your first part refers to the Temporary Directory Number that a roamers MIN (Mobile Identification Number) is assigned to in certain types of automated roaming, such as Follow Me Roaming or NationLink etc. I won't go into some details in case the problem is more severe than I personally realize, but suffice it to say, when the TDN is assigned for a MIN by the automated roaming system, and ESN is usually assigned as well. In essence in the market where the phone is being used, that MIN is activated like a regular home subscriber, except that the direct dial phone number (or the TDN) is not the same as the cellular's MIN. If you were able to get your TDN you could just as easily give people in the market your roaming in your TDN and receive calls just as a home sub in that market without having to pay the long distance charges to your home carrier for forwarding your calls as well. In the switches I work with, the ESN is also included so that, just like a regular home sub, the ESN is checked with that MIN. Also, when a new number is activated the new MIN's ESN is included in the activation. [Just to be on the safe side I will be checking my switches to verify that this is indeed happening ...] And, in my opinion if the carriers are not utilizing the ESN when assigning TDN's, they are asking for a whole can of worms, and I'm surprized it didn't get caught sooner ... The next item you mentioned was Radio Shack.. In '90 or '91 Radio Shack implemented the rule- ONLY ONE DEMO NUMBER PER STORE. Seems managers were getting free portables and free service. The stores where I knew the managers told me about the switch over and how they couldn't sell the one phone they had on display because that was their only demo number. I also know that in the markets I've been around, the carrier would not activate a "zeroed" out ESN no matter what the agent/dealer wanted. Perhaps if the agent/dealer agreed ot assume all liability created by opening up the number they might ... but still I think you see the security risks here. I've since moved away and have really not kept in touch with these people, so it is possible that in some markets or with Tandy's influence, some carriers opened up the ESN ... I would sure hope not. Lastly, I don't know how many carriers still allow zeroed ESN for their administrative calls. I know that I don't know of any personally. For a while this was the case, but that was four to six years ago and since then those were the first security holes closed when fraud started to become a larger problem for the carrier. Perhaps I misunderstood ... I thought the initial message was started out as what is being done right now by the cellular phreaks out there. If not, then I just wasted some bandwidth. The TDN problem is a new one to me, and I will go and double-check my systems to verify it operates the way it is supposed to, but beyond that, the zeroed (sp?) ESN activated in a switch is virtually nonexistant (unless a tech or switch person went against a company's policy??) Greg [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was three or four years ago that Cellular One here in Chicago started cleaning up that mess. They had a whole bunch of numbers with zeroed out ESNs in the 312-659 range for several years. I guess they got eaten alive like many other carriers and found out the hard way. Of course, 312-659 was the very first cellular prefix used here, and that was/is where Cell One had/has all their own admin, testing and customer service numbers. In our local Radio Shack District here (Chicago North) they tightened up on the scam a few years ago, but I don't know about other Radio Shack Districts. Cellular carriers still leaving that back door open for their own convenience should at least review it and make sure the fraud level is tolerable. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #391 ****************************