TELECOM Digest     Fri, 3 Feb 95 09:03:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 76

Inside This Issue:                         Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Bruce Albrecht)
    Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Rob Boudrie)
    Re: GSM SIM Implementation (tuomo@aol.com)
    Re: U.S. 800 Subscribers and Freephone Issue (Linc Madison)
    Re: Technical Help Needed With Pending Litigation (Mark Fraser)
    Re: Cell Phone Programming - Follow-Up (Glenn Shirley)
    Re: Automatic Page Application Off of NT-SL1? (Rob Lockhart)
    Re: GSM SIM Implementation (David Mclauchlan)
    Re: CID Question (Mike Pollock)
    Re: Long Distance Caller ID/Cellphones? (Daniel Cayouette)
    Re: Old Phone Number Format Question (Michael Dillon)
    Re: Five Digit Phone Numbers (Kimmo Ketolainen)
    Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Carl Moore)
    Reminder: Send in Those Biographical Sketches (TELECOM Digest 
Editor)

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 Feb 95 00:00:23 CST
From: bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht)
Subject: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money?


Paul Robinson <paul@tdr.com> wrote:

> I'm going to raise an issue here because I think it relates to the
> issue of why nothing beyond lip service seems to be done by carriers
> about cellular fraud.

> Let me explain that I'm not condoning the idea of cellular fraud, 
what
> I want to do is discover exactly where the numbers for the amount is
> coming from and what relationship to reality those numbers 
represent.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does it matter, Paul?  Does it really
> matter?  Should stealing someone's 'profits' be any less severe an
> offense than stealing their actual cash? You may not be condoning 
cell-
> ular phone fraud, but you sure know how to speak the language of the 
> phreaks and hackers.

I'm not condoning the actions of cellular phone time thieves, they are
exactly that.  However, the phone companies have been known to grossly
inflate the value of things stolen from them (for example, placing the
value of documents in the tens of thousands of dollars, when they 
could 
be ordered from the appropriate departments for less than $100).

My question is that if they are truly losing hundreds of millions of
dollars a year to fraud, why aren't they switching to known 
technologies 
(e.g., GSM based) which have per call authentication using a random
number query with an encrypted key response, when such systems have
been available for several years in other parts of the world?  If they
really are losing $300 million or more a year, it must be cheaper to
replace every single cellular phone with a more secure system than to
let these losses continue to escalate.

If most of this amount is funny money, "lost profits" that they never
really expected to generate, and use of excess capacity, then are the
phone companies crying wolf?  Are we currently in the position where
the phone companies are like the suburban/rural household that never
locks their doors "because crime never used to be a problem", and now
screams for more police because they keep getting burglarized, but
still never lock their doors?

My main concern over cellular telephone fraud is that because it is
partly due to decisions made by the phone companies, and that it's
probably been exaggerated, that our government is either going to
respond with excessive legislative and/or regulatory reaction to a
technical problem, or with no action at all.  Either way, it sends the
wrong message.


Bruce Albrecht (bruce@zuhause.mn.org)

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

From: rboudrie@phish.ecii.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money?
Date: 3 Feb 1995 06:36:13 GMT
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma


> sci.chemistry, comp.os.  linux.announce, or even alt.angst!  [Except
> of course, when an AT&T PR man told the media that people from the
> "network" (meaning comp.dcom.telecom) who were communicating and
> complaining about the USA Today 800/900 incident were people who 
were
> interested in "getting something for nothing".  (Remember that 
Pat?)]

I remember this very well.  I originally reported the AT&T misbilling
to Adam Gaffin, {Middlesex News} (Framingham, MA) technology reporter.
Adam did a good job of getting his facts straight (and even quoted me
accurately), though AT&T spokescritter Rick Brayall obviously does not
understand what the Internet/Usenet is.  He actually refered to Usenet
as a "clandestine network". (or some similar term).  Adam Gaffin 
correctly 
mentioned that AT&T's Bell Labs were connected to the network.

Most amusing was Brayall's assertion that people should not have 
called 
that number since it was never listed or advertised.


rob boudrie    rboudrie@ecii.org


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder where Adam has been lately? We
used to get some very nice articles from here here once in awhile, but
not for a long time now.  PAT]

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

From: tuomo@aol.com (Tuomo)
Subject: Re: GSM SIM Implementation
Date: 03 Feb 1995 00:56:44 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: tuomo@aol.com (Tuomo)


> And this totally ruins one of the nice purposes of the SIM: being 
able
> to have several phones (for instance, one nice vehicle mounted 
phone,
> and a hand held terminal) and still using them with one SIM only. If
> two of your phones use different types of SIM, you're out of luck!
> I've been told that some companies were now selling adapters, but 
the
> convenience of all this has yet to be seen.

> Luckily, it seems that manufacturers have realized this and they now
> offer small hand-held terminals that will take normal size SIM 
cards.
> But of course, these models can't be really small, limited as they 
are
> by the size of the card. Would could have guessed that credit cards
> would finally happen to be too big? :-)

There is a classical answer to this -- is the distance between your 
ear
and mouth shorter tha that of a credit card?  How about the size of
your shirt pocket, inner pocket of a sport jacket /suit?

If you look at how the phones have evolved (ove five years ) they are
getting flatter and lighter but not necessarily smaller in diameter,
so that you can still hold one to your face and talk (with the 
exception 
of a few of course ).


Tuomo

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

From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: U.S. 800 Subscribers and Freephone Issue
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 
guest)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 22:40:23 GMT


Judith Oppenheimer (producer@pipeline.com) wrote:

> As Bob discusses, the US number 1-800-FLOWERS would also be 
available
> internationally (assuming the company was willing to pay for 
incoming
> international calls) as +800-1-FLOWERS, and a hypothetical Irish
> number 1-800-FLOWERS could be dialed internationally as +800-353-
FLOWERS.  
> Since each country code would have its own domain within the overall
> +800 number space, no collisions would be possible.

> Of course, even this simple scheme could still run into the number
> scarcity problem, since it presumes only a single free-phone area 
code
> for each country. So perhaps the only fool-proof plan is to just use
> +800-<country-code> as a prefix to the entire national toll free
> number, area code and all.

> Under this method, the US and Irish examples above would become +800 
1
> 800 FLOWERS and +800 353 800 FLOWERS, respectively.

There is also the problem that freephone numbers in Ireland are not in
"area code" 800, they are dialed with the "special access code" 1800.
That's 1800, *not* 1-800.  The difference is that a hypothetical 800
area code would be dialed as (0800).  Of course, Ireland won't ever
put into service an area code 800; my point is that the 1800 access
code is not treated the same as an area code.  In the US, '800' is
treated the same as an area code.  In Ireland, 1800 is a special code
like 153 for directory inquiries or 112 for emergencies.  At any rate,
that's what Telecom Eireann will tell you.

(I'm not sure if 153 is the correct number or if 112 is in service 
yet.)

My thoughts on the more general subject:

(1) +800 XXX XXXX is too absurd to even contemplate.  A seven-digit
numberspace is far too small.  Even eight digits is questionable.

(2) With an eight- or nine-digit number, numbering spaces (not
necessarily transparently related to the country code) could be
reserved for existing subscribers.  This seems a desirable option.


Linc Madison   *   Oakland, California   *   LincMad@Netcom.com

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

From: mfraser@vanbc.wimsey.com (Mark Fraser)
Subject: Re: Technical Help Needed With Pending Litigation
Date: 03 Feb 1995 05:37:12 GMT
Organization: Wimsey Information Services


I can't provide evidence or anything concrete, but was given reason to
believe that Northern Telecom's switches may be vulnerable via the
Signaling System 7 path.  Rumor had it that the SS7 implementation was
partly responsible for the massively expensive software rewrite that
was begun a couple of years ago; ISDN has been curiously delayed in NT
territory; support of some "user" data packet functions over the "D"
channel were/are absent apparently, and there seemed to be quite a lot
of smoke generated whenever questions on these topics were raised.  On
SS7, calls from here [Vancouver] to Ottawa curiously generated
ringback and answers, even, within hundreds of milliseconds of dialing
the last digit [well, seconds for an answer] during the period when
SS7 was *NOT* going to be introduced for "a long time".  Tweren't MF
signaling that got THOSE fast results ... I'd be inclined to follow
that route.


Mark

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

From: shirleyg@stanilite.com.au (UL ENG)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Programming - Follow-Up
Date: 03 Feb 1995 02:11:34 +1100
Organization: Stanilite Electronics Pty. Ltd. Sydney, Australia


amcphail@hookup.net (Alex McPhail) writes:

> I posted an article a while ago, but haven't had any luck yet 
(except
> to hear from others that they too would like the same information).  
I
> am looking for how to re-program a cell phone's phone number for the
> TechnoFone and the Motorola FlipPhone cellular phones.

> If anyone as any information about this, or knows where I can look, 
I
> would appreciate a reply.

As I work with the air interface side of cellular systems I have
programming information about numerous different makes of phones.
These have always been aquired when new phones have been given to
myself and the other engineers here for testing or to take to foreign
countries with our systems.

As far as I know there has never been any non-disclosure type
agreements signed or even mentioned for any of these (but I'll have to
check the data sheets to check there's not something there).  While I
have no intention of giving anyone this information is there anyone
out there who know what the legal situation is?  Is non-disclosure
inherent in the information?  Should they (the cellular phone 
companies) 
have got me to sign an agreement? Have the techies at the local 
service 
providers broken the law giving me such information? Or is this 
information
just freely available to everyone?


Thanks in advance,

Glenn


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, its not quite *freely* given. You
can purchase technical literature on most cellular phones which will
tell you everything. For example, Radio Shack Technical Support in
Texas has manuals on all the phones they sell which they will be happy
to part with for fifteen dollars or so; have your major credit card
ready when the operators who are standing by take your call. Motorola
has the same kind of technical stuff available for purchase.   PAT]

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

From: rlockhart@aol.com (RLockhart)
Subject: Re: Automatic Page Application Off of NT-SL1?
Date: 02 Feb 1995 23:21:55 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: rlockhart@aol.com (RLockhart)


Ken Stone <ken@sdd.hp.com> wrote:

> I have an application where I need to generate a numeric page when a
> phone number is dialed.  We have an emergency number here on site 
that
> when called rings a series of "red phones" around the site at key
> people's desks.  What I would also like to do is generate a page to
> these same people when the emergency number is dialed.

If this is truly an emergency situation requiring a page, then you'd
probably be better off sending an alpha page.  There is no standard or
relatively reliable method of sending a numeric page by computer.  At
least using the alpha page entry protocol, you'll know you got the
message *to* the paging system.  Using DTMF to blind-dial a numeric
page, relying only on delays to get the message into the terminal,
won't give you any positive handshake.


Rob Lockhart, Resource Manager, Interactive Data Systems
Advanced Messaging Systems Division, Paging Products Group Motorola, 
Inc.
Desktop I'net:  lockhart-epag06_rob@email.mot.com
Wireless I'net (<32K chars): rob_lockhart-erl003e@email.mot.com

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

From: davemac@adam.com.au (david mclauchlan)
Subject: Re: GSM SIM Implementation
Date: 03 Feb 1995 11:33:55 +1030
Organization: ADAM Pty Ltd


I'm not so sure guys. When I subscribed to Optus Digital here in
Australia (GSM) and received my SIM card, I was given the credit card
sized part left over from when they punched out the actual SIM chip. I
have a Nokia phone which uses the Micro-SIM, but if I wanted to use
say the Motorola 7200 Gold which uses the credit card sized SIM, I can
replace the Micro-SIM in the credit card sized holder with no problem.
Plenty do that here I believe.


Fidonet: 3:800/805    CompuServe:100236,420
David McLauchlan   Internet: 100236.420@compuserve.com
davemac@adam.com.au (preferred)

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

From: pheel@panix.com (Mike Pollock)
Subject: Re: CID Question
Date: 02 Feb 1995 18:28:41 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


Dave Levenson (dave@westmark.com) wrote:

> Stan Schwartz (stanschwartz-aviswizcom@e-mail.com) writes:

>> I have recently begun using TotalTel as a secondary LD carrier (by
>> signing up for secondary service and a calling card).

>> HOWEVER ... if I dial 10081 + NPA + NXX + XXXX, the call is 
completed
>> with CID information provided at the receiving end!  Any ideas on 
what
>> they are doing here?

>> On their 800 service, TotalTel also seems to translate the ANI of 
the
>> calling party and delivers it as CID information on the receiving 
end.

> This is just a guess on my part, but this sounds very similar to the
> service we get using Cable & Wireless.  Could it be, perhaps, that 
C&W
> and TotalTel are both reselling WillTell service?  WillTell is the


> company most often described in this digest as providing Inter-LATA
> delivery of ANI via CID, or something like that.

TotalTel USA maintains their own network; they are not a reseller.  

On both inbound 800 and outbound direct dial service, TotalTel takes
ANI info and translates it to CID, so if you call someone over
TotalTel, even if your area is not CID-capable, your ANI info will be
captured and translated and will show up on the callee's CID box.


Mike

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

From: daniel cayouette <cayouett@bnr.ca>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Caller ID/Cellphones? 
Organization: BNR Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 17:03:57 GMT


In article <telecom15.51.4@eecs.nwu.edu> dskidmo@halcyon.com (Don
Skidmore) writes:

> In article <telecom15.41.11@eecs.nwu.edu>, zawada@ncsa.uiuc.edu 
says:

>> Does the NT DMS-100 (with the proper software of course) support 
SS7?
>> I find it hard to believe that there is no SS7 capability for the
>> DMS-100 ... can someone prove me wrong?

> If not, a lot of us are going to be out of luck.  I am counting on 
the
> new rule to improve my experience re your next question -- hope it's
> not in vain.

The DMS-100 has had SS7 capability since the 1985-87 time-frame
through the MSB7 and now through the LPP peripherals.

>> Can anyone address how the new rules affect cell-phone calls?  All
>> cellphone calls report "out of area" around here.  Presumably this 
is
>> because the cellphone customer has to pay air charges for all 
calls.
>> Will they have to pass CID info under the new rules?

Refer to the 'Notice of Proposed Rule Making' that discusses Wireless
and PBX E911 in http:

//fcc.gov:70/0/Daily_Business/1994111/ntcc4002.txt - CC-docket No. 94-
102.  

Industry comments are scheduled for Feb 8 '95.  To paraphrase a bit,
'... there currently is no uniform means for ensuring that this
information [CID and location info from wireless terminals] reaches
emergency services personnel.' The FCC has set some basic guidelines
and is asking the industry to come up with such a standard to meet
these guidelines.


Daniel Cayouette       Ottawa, Ontario   Daniel.Cayouette@bnr.ca

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

From: michael@junction.net (Michael Dillon)
Subject: Re: Old Phone Number Format Question
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 1995 00:10:44 -0500
Organization: Okanagan Internet Junction, Vernon B.C., Canada


In article <telecom15.64.10@eecs.nwu.edu>, 
<wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.
uoknor.edu> wrote:

> Quoting Andrew C. Green <ACG@dlogics.com> 

>> The following question appeared recently in the Old Time Radio
>> Digest mailing list, and seems tailor-made for an answer from this
>> forum.

>> From: "Richard M. Weil" <richrw@pipeline.com>

>> The number for the store in Rockford was curiously 8-22-47.  I'm
>> too young to know anything about 5 digit phone numbers.  Is that
>> how it was back then in small cities?

Too young, eh? 

In the early 1970's I lived near Moonstone, Ontario in Canada. At the
time we got phone service from the Moonstone Telephone Company which
was bought by Bell in 1972 I believe. Before Bell came in, our number
was 33-W-21. The way it was explained to me was that 33 was our line
number, i.e. the 33rd wire coming into the exchange. Each line had two
sides to it, the J side and the W side (ADSL?) and our ring was 21,
i.e. two longs and a short. I remember visting the switchboard with my
mother, who was a friend of the night operator and the plugboard was
wood, with large black plugs just like those seen in old photographs.


Michael Dillon                                    Voice: +1-604-549-
1036
Network Operations                                  Fax: +1-604-542-
4130
Okanagan Internet Junction                     Internet: 
michael@junction.net
http://www.junction.net  -  The Okanagan's 1st full-service Internet 
provider

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

From: Kimmo.Ketolainen@utu.fi (Kimmo Ketolainen)
Subject: Re: Five Digit Phone Numbers
Organization: Turun yliopisto - University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 1995 16:54:00 GMT


A related note: the Finnish GSM network operator Radiolinja is giving
away four and five digit phone numbers for private cellphones on their
network. The full format, thus is 950 xxxx or 950 xx xxx (what a waste
of numbering space?). To acquire a number of this lenght one has to be
a shareholder of the company. One share costs 5000 FIM, about 900 USD.


Kimmo Ketolainen University of Turku            home +358 21 237 8227
Yo-kyl=E4 84 A 10  Kimmo.Ketolainen@utu.fi      shoe +358 40 500 2957
FIN-20540 Turku  http://www.utu.fi/finland.html work +358 21 262 1496

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

Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 4:00:19 GMT
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing


Wes Leatherock <wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu> writes:

> One-plus dialing in those exchanges does not indicate that an
> area code follows, but that the call is a toll call.  (Of course, 
now
> that an area code is required on all One-Plus dialing, there will be

Contradictory!  Leading 1 DOES mean area code follows.  On another 
note: 
Maryland and the Washington DC area also have the ten-digit-for-local-
to-
different-area-code scheme (you discussed Dallas/Fort Worth, and 
another 
message discussed the 416/905 border near Toronto).

tadc@seanet.com (Tad Cook) writes:

> In the rest of North America, we are having to dial the area code 
for
> all long distance calls within the area code, so that the system can
> handle the new area codes that look like prefixes.

With the leading 1 before area code.  But some states (California,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and at least optionally in New
Hampshire) the published instructions say to dial just the seven digit
number for long distance within area code.  What had to go away was 1
+ seven digits.  (There are some non-Bell points in Pa. that are
using the 1 + NPA + 7D for toll-within-NPA calls.)

4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca (Scott Montague) writes:

> implementing this system across area codes that don't necessarily 
need
> it, like the 604-905 boundary.

What 604/905 boundary?  604 is British Columbia.  Did you mean 905/705
and/or 705/807?

By the way, I wrote of the ten-digit scheme (see above) for some local
calls originating in Maryland and going to other area codes.  But 
other 
local calls from Maryland (to Pa., Del., W.Va. and to one exchange in
eastern-shore Va.) still are just seven digits.  The ten-digit scheme 
was
implemented in the DC area to relieve a prefix shortage there, and
replaced the seven-digit scheme; and you have that ten-digit scheme 
near
Toronto for similar reason.

mcardle@paccm.pitt.edu (Terrence McArdle) writes:

> Just for clarification's sake, I assume the phrase "local numbers 
that
> are in a different phone number" means dialing a destination 
existing
> in separate exchange, but the same area code, as the originator?
> Calls that cross a LATA boundary currently require eleven digit
> dialing, do they not?

I think you meant "local number in a different area code".  LATA 
boundaries 
don't always follow area code boundaries.  I think 609 in New Jersey 
is 
split between two LATAS, with long distance within 609 being just 
seven
digits.

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Subject: Reminder: Send in Those Biographical Sketches
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 08:30:00 CST


This is just a reminder to all that the Telecom Archives now has a
section called 'profiles' where reader/participants who have chosen
to do so have a short biographical sketch of themselves on file for
other *participating* readers to see.

The way it works is this:  You send the two or three paragraph sketch
of yourself to 'ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu'. This can be something like
who you are, your educational and professional background, your age
and personal interests, etc.  It gets installed in the profiles 
section
of the Archives and you in turn get the needed password to access that
directory and read about the other telecom people who have submitted
the same. 

The profiles directory is *NOT* accessible using FTP or other 
services.
It can *only* be accessed using the Telecom Archives Email Information
Service, and then only by supplying the correct password within the
text of your email. In return, you get the desired profiles of other
participants sent back to you by the email server. This is designed to
protect the privacy of all who wish to participate. You must provide
data about yourself in order to read the data of others. 

This is intended as a 'human resources' sort of thing; a way for 
people
in the telecommunications industry to get in touch with others with
desired job-related skills. It is also intended for Digest readers to
get aquainted with others who write in the Digest from day to day.

I install these profiles as quickly as possible when they are received
and by return mail you get a reply from me when your profile is in 
place along with instructions on how to access the other profiles. 
Quite
a few readers have sent these in; how about you?  


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #76
*****************************

                                                      
