TELECOM Digest     Mon, 8 Nov 93 22:34:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 747

Inside This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

   Re: TRW Phone Print to Fight Cellular Fraud (Erik Ramberg)
   Re: AT&T Ships 800 Number Directory to One Million Consumers (D. Levenson)
   Re: Remote Call Forwarding (Gary Morris)
   Re: Long Distance Provider Access Codes (Clarence Dold)
   Re: Question About T1 Equipment (Marc A. Tamsky)
   Re: Non-Bell Local Loop (Tony Pelliccio)
   Re: 800 Phone Sex, ANI, and Call Blocking Through PSN (Kath Mullholand)
   Re: 800 Phone Sex, ANI, and Call Blocking Through PSN (David A. Kaye)
   Re: Telecom-Tech Mailing List (John Stanley)
   Re: AT&T 2000 Public Phone (Jon Gefaell)
   Re: Telephone Pioneers Opens up Membership, etc. (David Leibold)
   Re: Frame Relay Information Request (Tom Wiencko)
   Re: Nationwide Caller ID Update (John Kennedy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 1993 18:34:14 -0800
From: Erik Ramberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: TRW Phone Print to Fight Cellular Fraud


[Moderator's Note: Erik sent in a couple replies in this thread which
got mangled in processing. They've been reconstructed below and I
apologize for the delay in using them.   PAT]

Paul R. Joslin  wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Willie Smith (wpns@newshost.
> pictel.com) wrote:

>> [email protected] (Erik Ramberg) writes:

>> Ha!  All this probably means is you have to clone the same
>> manufacturer and model of phone.  Especially with the big push to Six
>> Sigma (every product is identical to one part in a million), it's
>> going to be really difficult to tell phones of the same model apart
>> without denying service to folks at slightly different temperatures,
>> battery charge levels, and altitudes.  How long do you think it'll
>> take the cloners to crack this one?

> In the short term, how are cloners supposed to find out the make and
> model of the phone from the transmission they're stealing the ESN
> from?  Buy their own TRW system, and start characterizing signatures?

> I think you're right in the long term.  Professional thieves will
> "borrow" a phone from a parked car, get the ESN, then return the
> phone, or buy model number/ESN pairs from dishonest employees of the
> cell companies.  Perhaps this system will at least prevent the
> "casual" thieves.

First of all, one of our test fixtures is to take five phones that
were manufactured one after another on the assembly line, and see if
our system can differentiate the phones.  In other words, six sigma
only has relevance if the six standard deviations are of a feature
that we look at.  And since these features are the result of
complicated mechanical/electrical/RF factors, the six sigma standard
has little relevance to us.

Second, it will be a long time (if ever) before one can modify a phone
to match another.

John R. Covert wrote:

> Interesting.

> But, of course, there's a problem.  I can legitimately use my cellular
> phone's telephone number and ESN on three different transmitters:

> 1. The Micro-TAC itself.
> 2. The 3W VA in my own car
> 3. The Extended System in my wife's car.

> Actually, I can legitimately use it in _any_ compatible transmitter
> that provides the plug to go into the bottom of the phone.

We know of these situations and our algorithms take this into account,
thus allowing your legitiment use but denying the criminal access to
your account.

John Nagle wrote:

> [email protected] (Erik Ramberg) writes:

>> TRW INTRODUCES BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY TO BLOCK CELLULAR FRAUD
>> Each cellular telephone emits unique signal transmission
>> characteristics - an electronic version of a human fingerprint - which
>> cannot be duplicated.  These characteristics are matched with the
>> mobile identification number (MIN) and the electronic serial number
>> (ENS) of the phone to develop a unique pattern for each legitimate
>> customer, TRW PhonePrintTM uses sophisticated signal analysis hardware
>> and software to analyze and file the patterns belonging to legitimate
>> customers.  When a caller attempts to access the network, the system
>> compares incoming patterns to those on file.  If the patterns do not
>> match the call is immediately terminated.

>       I suspect this is an exaggeration of the actual capabilities.
> There are only a few chipsets used for these things, after all, and
> two units with the same chipset should perform very similarly.  But
> they might be able to tell which chipset was being used. Statisti-
> cally, though, that alone gives them a good chance of catching
> someone who records over-the-air info.

Unfortunatly I cannot disclose the workings of our algorithms, but we
can distinguish between identical phones.  You have to remember that
there are many steps that a signal takes between formulation and
transmission...and though these may be non-performance impacting
variations they are nevertheless variations that can be measured.
It's these parts that we call the PhonePrint(tm) and if you use a
phone in a heavy fraud area I'm sure you'll notice an improvement in
the cellular service.

> Cellular ID systems should have been public-key from day one.
> Someday, they will be, government opposition or not.

Why not public key?  There are several companies with commercial
applications using public key ... the government only gets antsy when
it's used for general purpose encryption of data/messages and the
register bits are long enough to eliminate any realistic crunch by a
supercomputer (i.e. a day or two).  Use as an authentication device
(i.e. digital signitures) is not a big deal.  In fact my Mac at home
implements this capability in the operating system!


Erik

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

From: [email protected] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: AT&T Ships 800 Number Directory to One Million Consumers
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 21:14:34 GMT


In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Nigel
Allen) writes:

> AT&T Ships 800 Number Directory to One Million Consumers

> Brighter and easier to use, this enhanced yellow-page directory
> contains more numbers and easy-to-locate categories than ever before.
> It lists 60,000 businesses that can be reached toll-free.

Don't forget ... this directory lists only those businesses who have
AT&T 800 service. A great many other businesses also have 800 numbers,
but won't be in the book.


Dave Levenson  Internet: [email protected]
Westmark, Inc.  UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: 908 647 6857

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

From: [email protected] (Gary Morris @ignite)
Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding
Organization: Alsys Group, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 01:10:27 GMT


In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Jon
Zeeff) writes:

> Are there any other solutions for remote call forwarding where I need
> to remotely change, on a rapid and frequent basis, where a phone
> forwards to?

Yes, sort of, use a handheld cellular phone to set your forwarding.
At a recent PacTel sale I picked up a GE (CT-100) handheld cell phone
for $99.  My total monthly cost is $20 for the cellular service.  I
can forward the cellular number to another phone.  There are no
airtime or per minute charges for the forwarded calls (unless the
number is a long distance call, of course) or to change the
forwarding.  Forwarding changes take effect right away, I just dial
*72nnn-nnnn on the cell phone and it's set.  Plus calls to the cell
number are toll free over a much wider area than regular landline
calls, callers don't pay toll charges and I don't pay airtime for
forwarded calls.

If forwarding is all you need then the portable cell phone alone could
do the job, the monthly cost may be more than you want to spend
though.

In addition to using my cell phone for remote forwarding, I also use
it in conjunction with voice mail and a pager.  I forward the cell
phone to whatever location I'm at and when I don't want calls or am
not near a landline phone, I forward it to my voice mail number.  When
at home, I forward it to my home number which rolls over to the voice
mail if there is no answer.  Voice mail with pager notification works
better than receiving calls on the cell phone, since I don't have to
keep the cell phone on and using batteries.

This system is better for other people too, since they only have to
know one phone number to reach me instead of my cell phone, pager,
home phone, various work phones, car phone, etc.  The total cost is
not real cheap though when you add up the pager, voice mail and cell
phone.


Gary Morris KK6YB    Internet: [email protected]
San Diego, CA USA    SD Sheriff's Dept - RACES Strike Team

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

From: [email protected] (Clarence Dold)
Subject: Re: Long Distance Provider Access Codes
Organization: a2i network
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 04:43:17 GMT


Alan M. Foonberg ([email protected]) wrote:

> Can someone tell me where I might find a list of the 10-xxx long
> distance provider access codes?

> [Moderator's Note: Sure ... in the Telecom Archives, in the sub-directory

Surely you jest?

The most recent date is 1991.

Clarence A Dold - [email protected]
               - Milpitas (near San Jose) & Napa CA.


[Moderator's Note: Well actually, that date might be in error because
Carl Moore <[email protected]> frequently works on the files in the area
code and carrier sub-directories. Check and see if the files there are
not peppered with [update,dated xx] remarks. So far as I know the
carrier access codes file is accurate. If anyone wants to take a look
and see what updates are still needed, if any, I'll be glad to put a
new version of the file there.   PAT]

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

From: [email protected] (Marc A. Tamsky)
Subject: Re: Question About T1 Equipment
Date: 8 Nov 1993 10:20:48 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena


In article <[email protected]> [email protected]
(Aninda Dasgupta) writes:

> I am trying to get an estimate of equipment needed for a T1
> connection.
> Scenario 1:

> Let's say I have a workstation and 24 geographically distributed
> salespersons.  My salespersons want to dial into my workstation using
> modems.  I get an 800 number, linked to a hunt group of 24 lines, from
> MCI (i.e. I get a T1 link to the MCI POP, provided by my LEC). What
> equipment (DSU/CSU, etc) do I need at the workstation end, to be able
> to provide these connections , keeping in mind that I will never
> originate any outgoing calls?

I recently got some material sent to me by both Cisco and Ascend.

Ascend seems to make exactly what you are looking for ...

Very brief summary:

Pipeline Access Router, supports 1-4 T1 circuits, call management, and
their larger units support anywhere from 8-40 additional digital
v.32bis modems.

Ascend phone 510.769.6001


Marc Tamsky                                 Finger for pgp 2.2 key.
tamsky @ {cco.caltech.edu | rain.org | cs.ucsb.edu | crash.cts.com}

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

From: [email protected] (Tony Pelliccio)
Subject: Re: Non-Bell Local Loop
Date: 8 Nov 1993 21:28:14 GMT
Organization: Brown University Alumni & Development Office


In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Carl
Oppedahl) wrote:

> The October 11, 1993 issue of {Network World} (page 27) talks of MFS
> Communications, Inc. which has supposedly launched a local and
> long-distance package for small and midsize businesses in New York
> City.

> Supposedly the service offers no-toll local calling and flat-rate long
> distance at 14 cents per minute.

> The article does not give contact information for MFS.

> I wonder if it is a subsidiary of Metropolitan Fiber, the company that
> is running fiber in competition with New York Telephone?

Here at Brown University they're replacing alot of New England Tel's
lines with a fiberoptic loop. Here in my dept we're replacing our three
56kbps lines and 100 voice lines passed through NET with a microwave
system. I love it.


Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR   [email protected]
Brown University Alumni & Development Computing Services
Box 1908   Providence, RI 02912    (401) 863-1880

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

From: [email protected] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: 800 Phone Sex, ANI, and Call Blocking Through PSN
Date: 8 Nov 1993 13:17 EST
Organization: University of New Hampshire


In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Michael
D. Maxfield) writes ...

> [email protected] (Daniel East) writes:

>> Dan noticed that Gordon Soukoreff once wrote:

>>> Yeah, I just called the thing and found out the 1-800 no. is routed thru a
>>> 1-900 no. and you pay for the call.

>>  Can anyone verify this?

The University of NH has had some experience with callers dialing 800
numbers and their ANI getting charged for calls billed as third party
calls, collect calls or credit card calls.  In every case, the number
charged was the ANI number for the trunk that placed the 800 call.
The provider insisted that they had received a call from the caller,
had terminated that call and called the caller back.  Since the
numbers billed are out-only services, we knew they were, at best,
billing for unsuccessful call-backs, or, at worst, lying through their
tranceivers.  None of the telephone numbers referenced on the bills
are the 800 number that was actually dialed.

We have documentation from those who placed the calls that:

1) they were not informed there would be a charge.
2) they did not receive an incoming call from the service
3) they did receive the service they expected to receive,
  usually by pressing one or a series of numbers on their phone.

(Since PBX callers' ANIs are not the phone number of the phone they
are calling from, there's the additional problem of figuring out who
actually placed the calls, but I'll stick to the issue of charging for
800 calls.)

In addition, the time the calls were billed disagreed with the actual
time of the 800 call by as much as three hours.

We documented the instances and complained to the FCC.  No response.
We then copied that complaint, added additional information to it,
and, since all the calls were billed by a single provider, sent a new
complaint to our BOC asking them to refuse to act as a billing agent
for this particular company.  We copied the FCC, and our PUC.  No
responses from anyone except the PUC, who wrote to tell us it was out
of their jurisdiction.

BUT, there is (sort of) a happy ending.  The FCC recently ruled that
this kind of billing back to an ANI from an 800 number is illegal
(sorry, I don't have the citation at my fingertips -- maybe a reader
here does?) *unless* the caller establishes a customer relationship
with the company.  From this, we're assuming that the company would
have to collect at the very least a name and address for the caller.
It doesn't protect UNH from the secondary ANI/Caller ID discrepancy
problem, but it should protect consumers from unexpected charges to
some extent.

(Right ... just like the FCC ruling on autodialers has protected
us.  I still get autodialed sales calls at least once a week.)

My basic feeling about the issue is that we have established a social
expectation that 800 numbers are free.  For companies to abuse that
expectation in order to provide harder-to-block 900-type services is
something that the FCC should stomp on very quickly, in order to
preserve the integrity of our national phone system.  **soapbox mode
off**

Michael, you have my premission to post this to other groups.  I'd do
it myself if I were more familiar with the system.


Kath Mullholand    University of New Hampshire

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

From: [email protected] (David A. Kaye)
Subject: Re: 800 Phone Sex, ANI, and Call Blocking Through PSN
Date: 8 Nov 1993 18:28:04 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access   (415) 705-6060  [login: guest]


Michael D. Maxfield ([email protected]) wrote:

> The lady did mention that she has heard of some services charging
> callers of an 800 line for their calls, but such charges would be
> independant of the phone company and believed legally required to be
> preceeded by an announcement stating such a charge.  (There is NO
> audio announcement on the line ... I just called it).

There is a legal term called "informed consent" which means that a
person can consent to a contract (in this case to pay for a phone
call) ONLY when informed about it.  People rightfully believe that a
call to an 800 number is a free call (it's in the front of the phone
book, after all), so I don't think any service will succeed in pushing
for payment for a call when they have not warned the caller there
would be a charge.

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

From: [email protected] (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Telecom-Tech Mailing List
Date: 8 Nov 1993 19:43:32 GMT
Organization: Coastal Imaging Lab, Oregon State University


In article <[email protected]>, Tom Ace <crux!tom@hercules.
aptix.com> wrote:

> If (like me) you don't have a news feed, you can now read and
> participate in the discussions in alt.dcom.telecom, as it is now also
> available by mail as a digest.  To quote from the heading of a recent
> issue:

This should pretty much put to rest the complaints about how much the
non-USENET Telecom Digest readers will lose should comp.dcom.telecom.
tech be created. If you get TELECOM Digest by mail you can certainly
get Teletech by mail.

That leaves no reason for TELECOM Digest readers to vote against the
group.


[Moderator's Note: Unless like me, they just want to be contrary and
vote NO out of spite.  :) By the way, I had heard that after that
special mailing by Asbestos Dippold the other day to offset the undue
influence and Bad Thoughts I propogate each day while commercializing
the net that they were gonna have another vote; one that would be
clean and honest, and without any undue influence or hypnotized
voters, etc. I assumed by now Asbestos probably would have issued the
Call For Voting, but maybe he is afraid if they have another vote
they will lose *again*; then who will they blame, the votetaker?  PAT]

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

From: Jon Gefaell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: AT&T 2000 Public Phone
Organization: Security and Technology Planning, ITC/UVA
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 22:45:47 GMT


In article <[email protected]>, Tony Pelliccio
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Greg Abbott <gabbott@uiuc.
> edu> wrote:

>> While on a recent business trip, I attempted to use an AT&T 2000
>> Public Phone (the model with a keyboard attached).  I was unable to
>> get it operate, but didn't have a whole lot of time to read all of the
>> instructions.  I was attempting to use my AT&T Corporate Calling Card
>> and the CRT on the phone kept telling me something like "Service
>> unavailable ... please try again later".  I got this reponse on all
>> three attempts.  I didn't really need to use it, but being a
>> techno-buff, I decided it would be fun to play with.

>> [Moderator's Note: You were probably not doing anything wrong. That
>> style phone had to be temporarily (maybe permanently?) suspended when
>> one of the other carriers (I think it was MCI) had a hissy fit and
>> said if they could not have it also, then no one could. They got a
>> court order to force AT&T to quit offering the service; that litiga-
>> tion is pending in the courts.  PAT]

Same thing happened to me today I was at a seminar in D.C. and wanted
to check my email from on of those phones in the hotel, Service
unavailable.  I was angry. I tried to use a phone like this six months
or so ago and had the same experience. At least I know why now.

Damn Judge Green.

As for MCI, I think if they want to put the equipment in, good for
them.  but I see no reason that AT&T should make THEIR equipment
available to MCI.

> We see the same thing in Amateur Radio. The American Radio Relay
> League offered to administer the re-started club callsign database.
> The W5YI group yelled and screamed to the FCC about it so now there
> will be no re-start.  Bunch of crybabies if you ask me. Make me want
> to send my W5YI accreditation back to them with about 400 pages of
> nastygram attached, postage due.

You are distorting the truth. The fact is, W5YI *DID* yell, but what
they yelled about was that the ARRL should not be allowed to be the
_only_ group authorized to do this. The ARRL suffers from the idea
that they are the end all and be all of Amateur Radio, yet they
discriminate and for various other reasons are not unanimously
supported by all Amateurs.

This is entirely different from the above situation. W5YI doesn't want
to use ANY of the ARRL's resources, it(he) is just demanding the right
to be able to represent Amateur Interests.

Any opinions expressed herein are not intended to be construed as those of UVA


Jon Gefaell,  Computer Systems Engineer   | Amateur Radio - KD4CQY
Systems Research, ITC OSSSD/Carruthers Hall | -Will chmod for food-
The University of Virginia, Charlottesville |  [email protected]

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

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 93 20:50:44 EST
From: David Leibold <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Pioneers Opens up Membership, etc.


A few important follow-up items from the original Bell News post on
the Telephone Pioneers. Contrary to the impression the article text
might have given, membership is limited to telecommunication
personnel, not the general public. Also, the phone number is the
contact for Bell Canada, and not a main office for the Telephone
Pioneers (though it may be a point of contact for those who can't find
out about the Pioneers otherwise).


David Leibold   replies: [email protected]   [email protected]  Fido: 1:250/730

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

From: [email protected] (Tom Wiencko)
Subject: Re: Frame Relay Information Request
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 19:38:03 GMT


Michael Lewis <[email protected]> writes:

> We are migrating our network from X.25 to Frame Relay and I am
> interested in all the information I can get on the subject.

> I can find a lot about both Cell-Relay and ATM on the Internet, but
> precious little about Frame Relay other than one RFC.

> Does anyone know where this subject is hidden?

Several books I have stumbled into lately:

Data Network Design (McGraw Hill, Darren Spohn)
Frane Relay Networks (McGraw Hill, Uyless Black)

Hope this helps.


Tom Wiencko   [email protected]

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

From: [email protected] (John Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Nationwide Caller ID Update
Date: 8 Nov 1993 20:30:58 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico


In article <[email protected]>, Dick Rawson wrote:

> In ISDN, at least according to the standards, the CNID is always sent;
> ...  (Given regulatory issues, what the phone companies implement might
> be different.)  ...

 On our switch, we have pretty much all of the 916.898-xxxx locked up
and dedicated to our University.  Anyone calling my ISDN set in the
office (that is calling from the university) has their phone number
show up on my display.  This works if the call is being made to me
from POTS or ISDN lines.

 A while back, when the 899-xxxx prefix was added, someone apparently
forgot to block them out and we could see 899 numbers show up too.
They fixed it later and now they show up as "PRIVATE".  This was all
done on the local switch, as far as I can tell.

 We're obviously in a far different situation as far as privacy is
concerned when we're dealing with campus-campus calls, although 899
privacy is obviously being looked out for.  I believe there is a key
sequence to press (doubtless costing $$$/month) that will let anyone
conceal themselves as "PRIVATE".

 Off-site (or non-899) calls come in as "IN-COMING" on the display.


John Kennedy <[email protected]>;   Communications Services;   USENET admin
      Windows/NT - From the people who brought you EDLIN

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #747
******************************



******************************************************************************


Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.