Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/telecom-recent/[e-mail] _Fri Jan 5 15:51:34 1996.msg

Internet Message Format | 1996-01-21 | 25KB

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id PAA03213; Fri, 5 Jan 1996 15:51:34 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 15:51:34 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #8

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 5 Jan 96 15:52:00 EST    Volume 16 : Issue 8

Inside This Issue:                        Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Is Cellular Cloning Legal? (Bob Keller)
    Re: Federal Crackdown on Cellular Cloning (Kevin B. Kenny)
    More on the 10-732 ANI Number (Mark J. Cuccia)
    Doppler Shift, was Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road" (Eric Valentine)
    Newest COCOT "Tricks" (Van Heffner)
    500 Numbers - How Much Longer Do They Have? (Stan Schwartz)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 13:04:47 -0500
From: Bob Keller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is Cellular Cloning Legal?


In TELECOM Digest V16, #7, T.  Govindaraj <[e-mail]> asked:

> As a side note, I see notices in many places in Atlanta advertising
> something like "two cellular phones, one number." Is it time to call
> the cops?

Pat, appended below is a brief article I recently wrote on the subject
which you may or may not care to run in response to the above
question. This article was written for publication in Nuts and Volts
magazine -- and I believe it did run there -- but I did not sign away
any copyrights, so feel free to run it in the Digest and/or put it in
the archives if you wish.

 Bob Keller (KY3R)                      Email: [e-mail]
 Law Office of Robert J. Keller, P.C.   Telephone:  [phone]
 Federal Telecommunications Law         Facsimile:  301.229.6875
 2000 L Street, N.W. - Suite 200        CompuServe:   76100,3333
 Washington, D.C. 20036                 http://www.his.com/~rjk/


IF CELLULAR CLONES ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE CELLULAR CLONES: (A
Critical Review of the FCC Prohibition on Modification of Cellular Unit
Electronic Serial Numbers)

By     Bob Keller (KY3R)
    Law Office of Robert J. Keller, P.C.
    Washington, D.C.

Among the many rule changes and amendments included in the Federal
Communications Commission's recent "re-write" of Part 22 of its
Regulations (the section of the FCC rules governing common carrier
mobile radio services, e.g., paging, cellular, etc.), is a new Section
22.919 of the Rules. The new regulation, which became effective on
January 2, 1995, provides that every cellular telephone must have a
unique electronic serial number ("ESN") which may not be modified by
any person for any reason after the unit leaves the factory. (See
Figure 1 for the full text of Section 22.919 of the FCC Rules.)

The stated purpose of the rule is to prevent or reduce fraud that
results from the "cloning" (programming a legitimate ESN into a
fraudulent unit in order to illegally access a cellular system). But
the scope of the regulation goes further and has thus engendered much
controversy. No one argues with the proposition that it ought to be
illegal to clone cellular phones for the purpose of stealing service
or fraudulently accessing cellular accounts. As written, however,
Section 22.919 also precludes clearly nonfraudulent uses. It is a
violation of Section 22.919, for example, to clone your ESN into a
second unit to serve as an "extension" phone, even though you have no
intention of using both units at the same time and are willing to pay
all usage costs generated by both units. It is also a violation for
your own cellular carrier to program the ESN of your broken phone into
a loaner unit while repairs are made. Even cellular equipment
manufacturers are concerned that the regulation is so narrowly drawn
that many design features built into cellular phones are arguably in
technical violation.

It is not always easy to compose statutes or regulations that include
the targeted conduct or situation without also unwittingly
encompassing other matters that have nothing to do with the matter at
hand. Such problems are frequently addressed after the fact by
"interpretation" of the law. The meaning of a proscription can often
be viewed in terms of its underlying purpose. Such use of legislative
or regulatory history in effect imputes a certain intent to the
authors of the law. Should this process not be applied to Section
22.919? Would it not be reasonable to assume that, because the purpose
of Section 22.919 is to prevent cellular fraud, the Commission
certainly could not have intended by it to proscribe nonfraudulent
cloning?  Well, there is good news and there is bad news. The good
news is we don't have to guess at the FCC's intention. All the right
questions were put to and answered by the Commission before the
regulation was adopted. The bad news is the FCC's answers to those
questions make very little common sense.

ESN modification and cellular cloning was a hot issue during the
rulemaking proceeding in which the current version of Section 22.919
was adopted. There was no argument with the need to adopt legitimate
regulatory measures to address cellular fraud, and there was no
objection to rules that prohibited the cloning of cellular phones or
the modification of ESNs for fraudulent purposes. But commenters
specifically urged the FCC not to draw the rule so narrowly that it
precluded either modification or "emulation" of ESNs in order to
create nonfraudulent "extension" phones. The Commission considered and
squarely rejected these arguments, stating:

"[T]he ESN rule will not prevent a consumer from having two cellular
telephones with the same telephone number .... We note that Commission
rules do not prohibit assignment of the same telephone number to two
or more cellular telephones. It is technically possible to have the
same telephone number for two or more cellular telephones, each having
a unique ESN. If a cellular carrier wishes to provide this service, it
may."

Thus, with the stroke of a pen the Commission gave the cellular
carriers an effective monopoly on the provision of cellular extension
phones.

The third party programmers of extension units, outlawed by Section
22.919, typically charge a flat fee to program the second phone. With
the adoption of Section 22.919, however, many cellular carriers have
started to offer two or more phones on the same number -- but they are
imposing monthly fees in the $17 to $30 range for this optional
service. At those rates many users may decide it is better to simply
buy a second cellular account -- and the critics say that is exactly
what the cellular carriers intend.

The Commission also expressly considered and rejected suggestions that
the scope of Section 22.919 be narrowed to permit ESN modification by
manufacturers and authorized repair centers. The Commission responded
to such suggestions as follows:

"[C]omputer software to change ESNs, which is intended to be used only
by authorized service personnel, might become available to
unauthorized persons through privately operated computer "bulletin
boards". We have no knowledge that it is now possible to prevent
unauthorized use of such software for fraudulent purposes."

That shows how far wide of the mark is the Commission's thinking on
this whole issue. Can the FCC -- the agency attributed with the
expertise in electronic telecommunications matters -- actually believe
that by making it unlawful to modify ESNs they will prevent thieves
from acquiring the means to do so? Are they really ignorant of how
relatively simple (not necessarily inexpensive, but simple) it is to
clone an ESN?

There is an entire underworld industry for the laundering of stolen
ESNs.  The footsoldiers set up their sniffing monitors at airports,
convention centers, busy highway interchanges, etc., and collect
thousands of ESNs off the air from unwitting cellular users. The
numbers are programmed into cellular phones and put on the street
through a black market network. The units are frequently recognized as
fraudulent and deactivated within days or even hours of their
deployment, but not before many hours cellular airtime and long
distance usage (potentially including extensive international long
distance) has been misappropriated. Canceling the fraudulent account
is easy -- finding the fraudulent unit and its user is not. The
Commission certainly can not believe that such a lucrative operation
is going to be hampered in the least by an FCC regulation making it
unlawful to modify ESNs. The perpetrators of these cloning schemes
knowingly and willingly assume the risk of violating many criminal
statutes with potential penalties far more serious than non-compliance
with an FCC policy.

Section 22.919 can not rationally be excepted to have any significant
effect on cellular fraud. It does, however, preclude totally
nonfraudulent uses by honest members of the public. It also gives the
cellular carriers a monopoly on the provision of cellular "extension"
phones. This is a curious ruling for an agency that recently has been
using "competition" as a mantra. Over the past few decades the FCC has
consistently struck down telephone company tariff provision that
precludes a uses of the telephone service that are privately
beneficial to the subscriber without being harmful to the network or
other users. Arguably, Section 22.919 fails under that test!

The final chapter has not yet been written. The Commission received
several petitions for reconsideration and clarification of Section
22.919. The matter is still under consideration, and at last report
and ruling was anticipated by the end of the year. If the FCC does not
adopt significant modifications to the rule, an appeal to federal
court may be mounted by some industry players. In the meantime, the
regulation remains on the books -- an obstacle to honest users, but an
entirely insignificant, if even noticed, "finger shaking" at the
crooks.

- rjk -

 ========
 Figure 1
 ========

 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 nonsequential
            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.

 ==========
 A Side Bar
 ==========

 Section 22.919 in all of its technical detail was adopted in late
1994 and did not officially become effective until January of 1995.
The FCC has had a policy prohibiting ESN modification, however, since
the earliest incarnation of its cellular regulations.

 Here is the full text of an FCC Public Notice explaining the policy
as it existed prior to adoption of Section 22.919.

 ----------

 PUBLIC NOTICE
 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
 COMMON CARRIER PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES INFORMATION

 October 2, 1991
 Report No. CL-92-3

 CHANGING ELECTRONIC SERIAL NUMBERS ON CELLULAR PHONES IS A VIOLATION OF THE
COMMISSION'S RULES

 It has come to the attention of the Mobile Services Division that
individuals and companies may be altering the Electronic Serial Number
(ESN) on cellular phones. Paragraph 2.3.2 in OST Bulletin No. 53
(Cellular System Mobile Station - Land Station Compatibility
Specification, July, 1983) states that "[a]ttempts to change the
serial number circuitry should render the mobile station inoperative."
The 1981 edition of these compatibility specifications (which contains
the same wording) was included as Appendix D in CC Docket 79-318 and
is incorporated into Section 22.915 of the Commission's rules.

 Phones with altered ESNs do not comply with the Commission's rules
and any individual or company operating such phones or performing such
alterations is in violation of Section 22.915 of the Commission's
rules and could be subject to appropriate enforcement action.

 Questions concerning this Public Notice should be addressed to Steve
Markendorff at 202-653-5560 or Andrew Nachby at 202-632-6450.


 Bob Keller (KY3R)                      mailto:[e-mail]
 Law Office of Robert J. Keller, P.C.   http://www.his.com/~rjk
 Federal Telecommunications Law         Telephone [phone]

------------------------------

From: Kevin B. Kenny <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Federal Crackdown on Cellular Cloning
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 1996 12:15:07 -0500
Organization: GE Corporate R&D, Manufacturing Technologies Lab


Clifford D. McGlamry wrote:

> An interesting article appeared in the Dec 18, 1995 issue of the RCR
> newsletter.  The US Secret Service is taking the first person to court
> in a criminal case involving the set up and use of "extension" phones
> (these are the ones everyone wants so they can have a second phone
> with the same number).  Make no mistake, this IS illegal.  The
> enforcement is coming, and pretty soon, there will be a large number
> of folks in the awkward position of digging through their pockets to
> pay when the piper shows up at their door!

I'm curious.  Would it be possible to set up a value-added service to
support `extension cellphones?'  The idea would be to have THREE phone
numbers: the numbers of the two cellphones and the number of the
group.  When someone calls the number of the group, a machine picks up
and places calls, simultaneously, to the two cellphones.  The first
call to complete wins, and the other call gets dropped.  A smart PABX
could probably arrange to see that the inbound call doesn't supervise
until the outbound call does.  Feasible?


Kevin

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 09:28:00 CST
From: Mark J Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: More on the 10-732 ANI Number


Recently I mentioned that the AT&T's special network 10-732 code's ANI
number had been changed from 404 to 770, conforming to the split of 404
into a smaller 404 and new 770.

I also mentioned that there was also a second ANI number in 10-732 using
Pittsburgh's 412 area code, but I didn't know it off hand.

10-732-1-412-369-3106

The Atlanta area number is now:
10-732-1-770-988-9664
         ^^^

770-988 is in Smyrna GA while 412-369 is in Perrysville PA.

The 412 number is probably better to use from the Atlanta local (flat
rate) calling area (which is probably one of the largest geographically,
population-size *and* in number of Central Office (NXX) codes available.

Based on what I've been told by friends in the Atlanta area, BellSouth
does *not* allow use of 10-XXX (101-XXXX) over-ride calls for calling
NPA-NXX codes which are local to the caller. (It is also that way here
in Louisiana). 770-988 (previously 404-988) Smyrna is local within the
Atlanta area, and therefore, 10-732/101-0732+ (1) 404/770 988-9664
was/is not allowed by BellSouth's exchanges in the Atlanta local
calling area.

BTW, from my cellular phone, I don't have to insert the `1' between the
10-732 and the (404)/770 or 412 (the cellular system translates the
digits entered okay, since I am also using the `end' key).

But please note: from both cellular phones *and* POTS landline phones,
using a `0' (i.e. 10-732-0+NPA-NXX-XXXX) will route you to AT&T's OSPS
operator services if the LEC switch accepts the NPA-NXX code.

I have also dialed 1-770-988-9664 and 1-412-369-3106 without the
10-732/101-0732 and also with other 10-XXX/101-XXXX codes. I've
*always* received a busy signal. I doubt that there is *anything*
locally assigned to these Smyrna GA & Perrysville PA numbers.

And using 10-732/101-0732+1+ on *other* ten digit numbers I've dialed
*always* routes me to the recording:

`You have reached a private network. To complete long-distance calls,
you must be authorized by your account team or long-distance sales
representative. You may dial 10-288-1 plus the number you desire to
call.'


MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: [e-mail] |4710 Wright Road| ([phone])
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954([phone])|New Orleans 28  |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917([phone])|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Eric Valentine)
Subject: Doppler Shift, was Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road"
Date: 5 Jan 1996 14:47:17 GMT
Organization: Ericsson North America Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] writes:

> Well, sorta wrong at least.  There is a "technical challenge" that
> needs to be overcome to make PCS phones operate when moving at high
> speeds relative to the base station.  The Doppler Effect is about 2

Bingo. Got me. I went into it with the mindset of handover overloads
which has straightforward solutions, for instance using hierarchical
cells.  What speeds are we talking about and what is the direct
consequence (dropped calls?) of the Doppler shift?

Is this a problem in DCS1800 networks (I haven't heard that it is).


Eric Valentine

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 02:10:22 -0800
From: [e-mail] (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS)
Subject: Newest COCOT "Tricks"


Pat,

    I am not quite sure how long this has been going on, but I just
found out about it recently. I haven't personally seen any of
these COCOT phones locally, but I understand that they are becoming
widespread at new installations. It will be interesting to see what
MCI and AT&T do to combat this issue ...

NATIONAL Jan 4, 1996 (DLD DIGEST) -- MISSING LETTERS? The next time
you use a private payphone, look closely ... the newest "trend" in
private (COCOT) payphones are phones which have numbers on the
buttons, but not the corresponding letters (i.e. 2 = ABC, 3 = DEF,
etc.). The reason? Payphone owners are losing so much money from
dial-around services such as 1-800-COLLECT and 1-800-CALL-ATT that
they have started removing letters from their pushbutton phones so
that consumers will not be able to call these services. Most people
can not remember which letters correspond with a particular number on
a telephone without looking directly at it. Callers wishing to use
these alternate collect services usually end-up having to Dial "0" to
make the call, which is then handled by an Alternate Operator Service
chosen by the payphone owner. These services often have exhorbanant
per-minute rates and surcharges, much of which is paid as a commission
to the COCOT owner.


Van Hefner   Editor
Discount Long Distance Digest
http://www.webcom.com/longdist/

------------------------------

From: Stan Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: 500 Numbers - How Much Longer Do They Have?
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 21:48:25 -0500


I know we've touched on the subject before, but I finally saw it with
my own eyes last weekend, late at night on cable:

 "Girls are waiting to talk to you ... only $3.99 per minute ... call
1-500-319- ...."

How long before I can't dial my AT&T 500 number from most phones in
the world?  I had an EasyReach 700 number at one time but I dropped
it, frustrated that it didn't work in many places (one of them being
Rochester, NY, where the LEC (Frontier) didn't see it necessary to
upgrade their software to complete 700 calls).

I recently moved and I my job requires me to be at different locations.
It was very handy to have a 500 number that was programmable and would
bounce from location-to-location until it either reached me or hit my
voice mail.

Even my 66-year-old technologically-impaired mother was able to reach
me without having to dial all over the southeast (I cheated with her,
though -- I programmed the number into her CO-based Speed-Call-8).

If the FCC and BellCore and all parties involved were able to agree on
"Free for the call" 800 and 888 services (other threads not withstanding),
why couldn't someone force their hand at agreeing to an NPA that would
be a "minimal charge" (under $.50 or $1.00 per minute) NPA???  Did
they all just shoot each other in the feed again?  Does anyone use 700
anymore, or is it permanently tainted?  How long before they kill the
400 NPA?


Just ranting ...

Stan


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At least 500 has something which was
missing in 700: the ability to one plus it or zero plus it with
differing results. That does allow more flexibility, plus the ability
(by zero plussing) to reverse the charges which 700 had also with
its pin numbers. But with 700 you always had to add the 10288 part
if you were not already a customer of AT&T.     PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V16 #8
****************************