TELECOM Digest Tue, 17 Jan 95 14:25:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 36 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Horrible Earthquake in Japan (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Bob Keller) Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Ben Burch) Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Bill Garfield) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Gary Novo) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bob Keller) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Clifton T. Sharp) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Peter Dibble) Re: Cellular NAM and ESN (Bob Keller) Re: Cellular NAM and ESN (Alan Shen) Re: Cellular NAM and ESN (Jeff Box) Re: Cell Phone PINs (Jay Hennigan) Re: Cell Phone PINs (Henry Baker) Re: Cellular Phone Pricing Question (Ken Weaverling) 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 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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Horrible Earthquake in Japan Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 14:00:00 CST Word is reaching us of a very severe earthquake which hit Japan several hours ago. This is reported to be the worst there in over a hundred years. Over 170,000 people have died, and entire cities are in flames. The government is attempting to cope with it, but is somewhat at a loss due to the severity of it. President Clinton has been in touch with the Japanese government and is sending immediate assistance as needed. This comes by coincidence on the anniversary of Northridge ... Can any of our Japanese readers give us more details? What has been the extent of the damage where telecommunications is concerned? PAT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 10:55:09 EST From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio David, I am not sure if this will be applicable, and therefore helpful, in your circumstances, but you should be aware of a 1993 FCC Ruling preempting state and local laws concerning amateur operator use of transceivers capable of reception beyond the ham bands. The official citation is: PR Docket No. 91-36, Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 93-410), 8 FCC Rcd 6413, 73 Rad. Reg. (P&F) 1196 (September 3, 1993). In paragraph 13 of the order the FCC wrote: We hold that state and local laws that preclude the possession in vehicles or elsewhere of amateur radio service transceivers by amateur operators merely on the basis that the transceivers are capable of the reception of public safety, special emergency, or other radio service frequencies, the reception of which is not prohibited by federal law, are inconsistent with the federal objectives of facilitating and promoting the amateur radio service and, more fundamentally, with the federal interest in amateur operators' being able to transmit and receive on authorized amateur service frequencies. We therefore hold that such state and local laws are preempted by federal law. I'd be happy to fax you a copy of the decision and/or chat with you about it. Email me or give me call. Bob Keller (KY3R) Email: rjk@telcomlaw.com Law Office of Robert J. Keller, P.C. Telephone: 301.229.5208 Federal Telecommunications Law Facsimile: 301.229.6875 ------------------------------ From: Ben_Burch@wes.mot.com (Ben Burch) Subject: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio Organization: Motorola, Inc. Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 17:13:21 GMT In article , mudaw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (David A. Webb) wrote: > An officer found my 2 meter amateur transceiver, turned it on, and > discovered it could transmit on frequencies licensed to the local > county police. I was not in my room during the time of the search, > so I had no control over its operation. This officer was in violation of federal law for tampering with an amateur radio station. Please turn him over to the FCC! Ben Burch Motorola Wireless Data Group: Ben_Burch@wes.mot.com Makers of the Envoy(R) Personal Wireless Communicator Envoy(R) Information Line; 1-800-8-WIRELESS ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio From: bill.garfield@yob.com (Bill Garfield) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 07:43:00 -0600 Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569 Reply-To: bill.garfield@yob.com (Bill Garfield) > Witness #3 was a person who services amateur equipment. He stated > that my radio is type accepted, and therefor it is illegal to modify. > Illegal modification therefor makes my radio illegal to possess. > Witness #1 was the university officer who stated under oath that he > used the radio to transmit on county frequencies to verify the > modifications. He also stated in his professional capacity that my > radio is illegally modified, and therefor illegal to possess. He > further stated that he called the FCC and was told my radio is illegal > to possess. While the writer is correct in his statement that Amateur or Ham radio equipment is not 'type-accepted', equipment which -lawfully- operates on commercial frequencies (police frequencies) and is capable of TRANSMITTING thereon, _must be_ type accepted, approved and certified for such use. The modifications therefore would constitute an equipment technical violation. Although the act of 'tampering' with non type-accepted equipment is allowable, the moment that equipment radiates energy on frequencies where type acceptance _is_ a requirement, then the modified equipment is in violation and as "property" it becomes contraband. While FCC regulations deal mainly with use and not possession, the writer may still be on shaky ground. I certainly wouldn't want the local constabulary _aware_ that I possessed transmitting equipment capable of operating on their lawfully assigned frequencies. But the obvious question which remains unanswered is -why- was the person's room searched in the first place? "Reasonable suspicion" is sufficient grounds in most jurisdictions, but suspicion of what? Ye Olde Bailey BBS Zyxel 713-520-1569(V.32bis) USR 713-520- 9566(V.34/FC)| Houston,Texas yob.com Home of alt.cosuard [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, this is something the original writer did not explain to us, and as you suggest, it seems like a very important part of this whole mystery. If their 'reasonable suspicion' had to do with improper or inappropriate transmissions on the radio, then the defenses discussed to date may go topsy-turvy in court. This may or may not be the best forum for David Webb to use to say everything he knows about this case -- at least at this time -- but I hope David will get an attorney and be completely straight with him. Attornies will tell you how the worst thing in the world -- and a very common thing, unfortunatly -- is to have a client who lies to them. Then they get in court, and the *other side* tells the attorney stuff his own client had 'forgotten' to mention. End result, the attorney gets egg on his face and looks like an idiot. Attornies don't like that. So David, please do get a competent attorney, and when all is over and done with, tell us how things worked out, okay? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 03:27:06 -0500 From: GaryNovo@aol.com Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Reply-to: gnovosielski@mcimail.com In TELECOM Digest; Mon, 16 Jan 95; 09:19:00 CST; Volume 15 : Issue 32 billsohl@earth.planet.net (Bill Sohl) writes: > No one needs any authority from the FCC to operate a receiver ... > that's one of the fundamental differences between the USA and many > other countries. In my view this so-called "fundamental difference" is a fairly hollow one. True, you don't need a license to operate a receiver in the U.S., and there are no license fees or federal taxes to be paid. I suppose, once upon a time, that "difference" implied a reverence for personal liberties which was arguably greater than it was in countries where receivers were heavily regulated, taxed, or even outlawed. But in the intervening years, Congress has passed a series of laws making the actual use of receivers illegal in a number of circumstances. The fact that they have never passed a law taxing them is cold comfort. ECPA as amended is only the latest insult. Previous laws made it illegal to intercept certain satellite downlinks (and uplinks), radar speed guns, and a number of other types of signals. If the trend continues, listening to any signal not explicitly intended for broadcast will be illegal. I know that at least one Congress member proposed legislation with just that wording. The freedom to own a device which one is not free to use is ironically appropriate in a country which increasingly seems to value ownership and property rights above the civil rights of its citizens. If I had my choice, I would much rather pay a tax or a license fee of a few bucks per year on a receiver if it brought with it the freedom to use the device as I saw fit. Gary Novosielski GPN Consulting My opinions ARE those of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 10:25:41 EST From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges In TELECOM Digest V15 #32, Bill Sohl wrote: > I have no problem with this statement and I'll state unequivocally > that scanners and/or other types of radio receivers are not (if > designed properly) included in the catagory "intentional or > unintential radiator" and they are not, therefore, licensed. I did not realize this was such a heated matter or I never would have stuck my nose into it ... but, now that I'm here ... A scanner most definitely is a "radiator". If nothing else, the micro- processor circuitry that makes it scan constitutes an unintentional radiator within the meaning of the rules. Many people in this thread seem to be confusing "radiator," which is a defined term of art under Part 15, with "transmitter" in the usual sense of that word. Many devices which are not "transmitters" (including not only receive-only devices, but also devices that have nothing whatsoever to do with transmission or reception of signals) nonetheless "radiate" electromagnetic energy and are subject to Part 15. In an oversimplified view, Part 15 governs two large classification of devices: (1) transmitters (in the general sense of that word) that operate at sufficiently low power levels and/or restricted circumstances that individual licensing is not necessary, and (2) devices that are _not_ transmitters (in the general sense of that word) but which nonetheless generate electromagnetic fields. The only points that I really wanted to make when I jumped in here are: (1) It is not entirely accurate to say that Part 15 places _no_ obligations on the user or the consumer. (2) The scope of Part 15 is much, much broader than what we generally think of as "transmitters." (3) User modification of a device _can_ (I don't say it _will_, I say it _can_) invalidate the device's Part 15 certification and/or verification. I am _not_ saying that home-built devices and/or user-modified devices are therefore automatically unlawful. In building or modifying a device, however, the user is responsible for keeping the technical parameters of the device within the radiation limits prescribed by Part 15 and, if those limits are exceeded, the user no-longer enjoys the right conferred by Part 15 to use the device without a license. With the possible exception of cellular scanners (which is an issue contaminated by political/industry pressures and other laws having nothing to do with the regulatory purposes of Part 15), I don't think there is any intent on the part of the government to prevent someone from building or modifying non-transmitter devices (on a non-commercial basis) in ways that do not cause interference, nor do I think there is any governmental interest in expending resources worrying it. Bob Keller (KY3R) Email: rjk@telcomlaw.com Law Office of Robert J. Keller, P.C. Telephone: 301.229.5208 Federal Telecommunications Law Facsimile: 301.229.6875 ------------------------------ From: clifto@indep1.chi.il.us (Clifton T. Sharp) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 07:04:15 GMT In article plaws@comp..uark.edu (Peter Laws) writes: >> "The operation of an intentional or unintentional radiator > RADIATOR!!! Not receiver!! *Transmitters* are a "whole nother" thing. > Radiator != receiver (I'll leave aside poorly shielded local oscillators:). But that was the whole point. A receiver with a poorly shielded local oscillator, or for that matter a computer or sparking relay or defective fluorescent light, are UNINTENTIONAL radiators (see above) and are just as thoroughly regulated (albeit not as often enforced :-). Cliff Sharp WA9PDM clifto@indep1.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: dibble@microware.com (Peter Dibble) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Date: 17 Jan 1995 01:21:53 GMT Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa In article TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Bob Keller : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you, Bob. Section 15.21 is all > May I suggest to readers the next time you decide to purchase some sort of > radio, or television perhaps, *look at the user manual*. Let's leave Radio Are you sure about this Pat? I looked carefully through the user manual for an AM/FM receiver and couldn't find a single reference to the FCC or any form of license or precaution except that there was quite a lot of prose explaining that it could be dangerous to listen to the radio at too high a volume. Peter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 11:04:50 EST From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Cellular NAM and ESN In TELECOM Digest V15 #30, Alan Shen wrote: >> Call your cellular carrier about this. Some will allow you to have one >> NAM for two different phones (with different ESN numbers) for an extra >> charge usually from about $5-$8 a month. John Covert responded: > Absolutely not! This is a violation of the cellular standard and > forbidden by the FCC. No carrier may permit it. It will not work > correctly; if both phones are on at the same time it may interfere > with calls to other subscribers. Setting aside the technology for the moment (NAMs, ESNs, etc.), what some carrier's are offering is the ability to have the same cellular úÿ telephone number active on more than one unit. For example, Cellular One in the Washington/Baltimore area just announced the service at $17.95 per month for up to three different units. What is illegal under FCC rules is post-manufacturer modification of the ESN. This was done not for the purpose of precluding cellular "extension" phones to otherwise legitimate users, but rather in response to the ever-growing fraud due to "cloning" of cellular phones. There are ways that cellular carriers can accomplish the same result in the switch without modifying the ESN and therefore without violating the law. The FCC staff has always had a policy prohibiting ESN cloining and/or tinkering, but until recently in was based on interetation of rules that really didn't directly address the matter, as well as to incorporation by reference of external industry equipment standards. A new rule which significantly more teeth was therefore promulgated, and became effective on January 1, 1995: New FCC Rule Section 22.919 47 C.F.R. Section 22.919 --------------------------------- 22.919 Electronic serial numbers. The Electronic Serial Number (ESN) is a 32 bit binary number that uniquely identifies a cellular mobile transmitter to any cellular system. (a) Each mobile transmitter in service must have a unique ESN. (b) The ESN host component must be permanently attached to a main circuit board of the mobile transmitter and the integrity of the unit's operating software must not be alterable. The ESN must be isolated from fraudulent contact and tampering. If the ESN host component does not contain other information, that component must not be removable, and its electrical connections must not be accessible. If the ESN host component contains other information, the ESN must be encoded using one or more of the following techniques: (1) Multiplication or division by a polynomial; (2) Cyclic coding; (3) The spreading of ESN bits over various non- sequential memory locations. (c) Cellular mobile equipment must be designed such that any attempt to remove, tamper with, or change the ESN chip, its logic system, or firmware originally programmed by the manufacturer will render the mobile transmitter inoperative. (d) The ESN must be factory set and must not be alterable, transferable, removable or otherwise able to be manipulated in the field. Cellular equipment must be designed such that any attempt to remove, tamper with, or change the ESN chip, its logic system, or firmware originally programmed by the manufacturer will render the mobile transmitter inoperative. ----------------- Bob Keller (KY3R) Email: rjk@telcomlaw.com Law Office of Robert J. Keller, P.C. Telephone: 301.229.5208 Federal Telecommunications Law Facsimile: 301.229.6875 ------------------------------ From: Alan Shen Subject: Re: Cellular NAM and ESN Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 01:10:07 -0800 Organization: University of Washington On Thu, 12 Jan 1995, John R. Covert wrote: > Alan Shen wrote: >> Call your cellular carrier about this. Some will allow you to have one >> NAM for two different phones (with different ESN numbers) for an extra >> charge usually from about $5-$8 a month. > Absolutely not! This is a violation of the cellular standard and > forbidden by the FCC. No carrier may permit it. It will not work > correctly; if both phones are on at the same time it may interfere > with calls to other subscribers. Are you sure? I've seen flyers from several different carriers now offering one NAM with multiple ESN. It's perfectly legal. You must be talking about have two phones with the same NAM and ESN. Daniel Kao ------------------------------ From: jeffb65582@aol.com (JeffB65582) Subject: Re: Cellular NAM and ESN Date: 16 Jan 1995 16:20:15 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jeffb65582@aol.com (JeffB65582) Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems in Dallas does offer the "same number with two different phones" (each with different ESN) for $10 per month. You are cautioned that if both phones are turned on, incoming calls will generally go to one phone (at random) but not both. Also, the phones can't call each other. Its a popular offering for those who have a mobile and want a handheld also. Jeff Box ------------------------------ From: jay@rain.org (Jay Hennigan) Subject: Re: Cell Phone PINs Date: 17 Jan 1995 01:40:37 GMT Organization: RAIN Public Access Internet (805) 967-RAIN A. Padgett Peterson (padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com) wrote: > Mark Smith Mercerville, NJ writes: >> By contrast, customers not using PINs must bring their phones back to a >> carrier or dealer for a new phone number, notify business associates >> and friends of the number change, or even modify business cards and >> stationery. > Don't understand the last part, the ESN is what needs to change, not > the phone number, guess someone does not understand the difference. > This is from a telco press release? Changing either will disable the cloned phone. The ESN and MIN (phone number) must match the carrier's records for the call to go through. As it is easier for the carrier to change the MIN than the ESN, they suggest this as the solution, despite the obvious inconvenience to their customers. Even if the carriers had the capability to reprogram ESNs, I doubt that they would release it to their field-level techs. There would be a lot of under-the-table cloning for customers who want two phones on the same number originating from the carriers' own service facilities. For someone who has been hit by the cloners and wants to keep the same phone number, he can either buy a new phone (at premuim prices because of no new activation), send it back to the manufacturer for a new ESN, or find a cloner to change it to something different and not in use on the home system and then get the carrier to update its records with the new ESN. ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: Cell Phone PINs Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 10:18:24 GMT In article , jeff@cher.heurikon.com (Jeffrey Mattox) wrote: > In article , Carl Oppedahl com> wrote: >> I was reading a book about the cellular system that was published >> eight years ago ... it identified the problem that if people copy down >> the ESN and phone number they could get free calls ... despite this >> the cellular industry moved ahead with the present system. > Somewhere, the person(s) that made the design/political decisions to > implement the system this horrible way are watching. They probalby > even have cellular phones themselves. I wonder what they are > thinking. "Gosh, I was a dumb so-an-so for ..." I wonder if it's the > same guy who invented the VCR programming scheme -- in which case he's > probably more of the mind to be laughing at the mess he's created. Highly unlikely. The attitude in big business has always been to move in packs, so that no individual will ever be blamed. "The _committee_ made the decision", etc. These guys are so clueless, that even if you pointed it out to them, they still wouldn't understand. The banking system's electronic funds transfer system is only a mite more secure than the cellular telephone system (this has been discussed on comp.risks). Even though hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud have been admitted (who knows how much worse hasn't been admitted), these guys still won't move to really fix the system. Apparently, so long as they can get insurance, they don't care what the losses are. So long as the cellular carriers can continue to pass on the losses to the _paying_ customers, and the totally clueless regulators allow them to do so, they won't lift a finger to stop the problem. ------------------------------ From: weave@hopi.dtcc.edu (Ken Weaverling) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Pricing Question Date: 17 Jan 1995 12:56:13 -0500 Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College In article , John McGing wrote: > Anyway, I have a couple of questions: Even including the $25.00 year > to the employee association, the monthly base cost is $11.03 month vs > $24.95. Over three years that's $167.00 x3 or over $500.00 in > savings. Is this deal too good to be true? The three year thing > doesn't worry me (we're NOT moving and the car phone we have is a > real top drawer Motorola we can switch to a new car.). Should it? One of the reasons for a three year contract may be due to the cell company planning on, or expecting, cell prices to drop in that period. If they do, and you are locked in for three years, they get to keep charging you under the older higher terms. For example, in some parts of the country, under certain plans, weekend local air time rates are FREE. If you are simply planning on using the phone for emergencies, then the lowest monthly rate is the best deal, and the three year committment isn't as important. If you make a lot of calls, then it is a gamble. Ken Weaverling weave@dtcc.edu |*| My opinions .NEQ. college's position ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #36 *****************************