TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Feb 95 12:55:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue
101

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. 
Townson

    Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Security of Cordless Phones? (Jeffrey A. Porten)
    Area Code/Prefix Trivia (mstrandrew@aol.com)
    Is Origin Cell of Cellular Call Logged? (Chuck Cairns)
    Re: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder (Richard Wildman)
    Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: Local Calling Areas (Linc Madison)
    Re: New Motorola Micro-tac Elite AMPS Cellphone (Marcus Lee)
    Directory Assistance Direct Connections (Kevin Bluml)
    US-MA-Boston Principal Technology Consultant, Recruiter (Beverly 
Kahn)

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: 500-677-1616
                        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: Thu, 16 Feb 95 11:59:10 CST
From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC


Kevin Mitnick, who had earned the unofficial title of 'America's Most
Wanted Computer Hacker' was arrested Wednesday morning at his home in
Raleigh, North Carolina.

Mitnick had managed to evade authorities in both Los Angeles and 
Seattle
during the past two years. He was caught through the efforts of one of
his latest victims, computer security specialist Tsutomu Shimomura of 
the San Diego Supercomputer Center. Shimomura was robbed of security
programs he had written when his computer was broken into on Christmas
Day, about two months ago. But one thing Mitnick apparently had not
forseen was that the programs he stole -- and then used -- would be
used to help track him down. Shimomura was able to detirmine this past
weekend that Mitnick, 31, was connecting through a modem attached to
a cellular phone somewhere near Raleigh. Through the cooperation of
telcos and cellular companies, authorities were able to track Mitnick
to his home early Wednesday morning.

Authorities say they hope this latest arrest brings to an end the 
career
of a man who began hacking and phreaking when he was in high school. 
At
one point Mitnick broke into a North American Air Defense Command 
computer
in Colorado. 

Referring to Mitnick as a 'dangerous computer terrorist', Justice 
Department
spokesman John Russell said the raid was conducted at 1:30 am on the
apartment in Raleigh in which Mitnick was living alone under a false 
name.

"His obsession was his downfall," said Deputy United States Marshall
Kathy Cunningham in Los Angeles. "His obsession to hack and phreak 
using
cloned cellular phones left us a good trail to follow."

Mitnick, who is known by the hacker name 'Condor' says he took that 
alias
after seeing the movie 'Three Days of the Condor' starring Robert 
Redford
as a man on the run from the government.  He grew up in Los Angeles, 
and
was convicted there in 1988 after a series of phreaking and hacking 
incidents
which included disconnecting the phone service to Hollywood stars and
others. Although initially he was given just a short prison term 
followed by 
federal probation, he continued to act out in his self-destructive 
ways and 
when his probation officer threatened to revoke his probation and send
him to prison, he disconnected her telephone to get even and then ran 
off!  
And he is supposed to be a smart guy?

In 1989, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles portrayed Mitnick as a 
brilliant 
young man 'obsessed with junk food and computers' who infiltrated 
computer
networks and telephone switching systems in the United States and 
England.

Although federal authorities suggested that he had broken into 
National
Security Agency computers, he was never charged with that crime.  At
one point however, they considered him so dangerous they got a 
judicial
order denying him any use of telephones at all, for fear he would call
up a computer and access it using the touchtone buttons on the phone.

In the earlier 1988 case, Mitnick agreed to plead guilty to hacking
the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) computer network and stealing
a program. He also pleded guilty to theft of sixteen MCI long distance
access codes and using them to make long distance calls. For this, the
court's imposition of punishment included several years imprisonment
with all but one year suspended, to be followed by federal probation
for the remainder of his term. After release from prison, Mitnick 
began
his probation. When his probation officer suggested she would revoke
his probation because of his behavior and return him to the 
penitentiary,
his response was to hack the appropriate computer and disconnect her
phone service ... he then fled.

In the fall of 1992, Mitnick was working for a private investigative
firm in Calabasas, California when the FBI was conducting an 
investigation 
into the break-ins of Pacific Bell computers. Realizing they were 
about
to close in on him, he fled again ... to surface only yesterday when
a man he decided to trifle with -- Tsutomu Shimomura -- decided not to
get mad, but instead to get even! Shimomura cooperated very closely
with the government to pinpoint Mitnick's whereabouts. 

On Wednesday, February 15, 1995, Mitnick was taken before a Magistrate
in Raleigh, North Carolina where he was arraigned on the charge of 
violating 
the terms of his probation in 1988, and new charges of computer fraud
in North Carolina. Assistant United States Attorney David Schindler in
Los Angeles said additional charges pertaining to Mitnick's actions in
San Diego, Seattle and Colorado would also be presented. Citing its
belief Mitnick was a danger to the community and likely to flee again
if released, the court ordered him held without bail, and once again
restricted his unsupervised use of telephones.  

Mitnick may be a smart man, but he seems to lack some common sense. 
One
does not ever screw around with one's federal probation officer; you
don't play with her telephone to get even; you don't run off when she
calls you. And when you are on the lam or otherwise, you don't steal 
from
someone like Tsutomu Shimomura. 

Speaking of whom, Shimomura attended the proceedings in Raleigh on
Wednesday. At the end of the hearing as he was being led away, a
handcuffed and shackled Mitnick turned to Shimomura, whom he has never
met or seen before and said, "Hello, Tsutomu, I respect your skills."

Shimomura nodded, then turned his back and walked away.

It must be remembered that in the United States, our constitution 
requires
a presumption of innocence on the part of Kevin Mitnick until his 
guilt
is proven to the satisfation of a judge or jury in a court of law.



Patrick Townson

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

From: jporten@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Jeffrey A. Porten)
Subject: Security of cordless phones?
Date: 16 Feb 1995 17:38:49 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


Having just gotten a new cordless phone (BellSouth 46mHz), and living
in the paranoid environs of Washington, DC, I find myself wondering
just how likely it is that the world is listening to my calls.

The phone has ten channels, and a security code feature which, so far
as I understand, exists mainly to prevent another cordless handset
from tapping into my base unit, but does nothing to scramble the
signal from the handset.

I live in an apartment building, with a few others nearby, so consider
this a high-density area.  Should I go on the assumption that people
are always listening in?  Sometimes?  Almost never?

I have a corded set that I keep hooked up for confidential calls; as a
stopgap, I sometimes scan channels on my cordless so any eavesdropper
will at least have to fiddle to find me again.  Does this help, or am
I kidding myself?


Thanks,

Jeff


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Corded or cordless, the assumption 
should
be that your telephone calls are never secure. In actual practice, it
may not matter to you; if you are just in idle chatter with someone 
you
aren't going to bother with the trouble of special precautions. My 
personal
belief is the use of scanners to listen to cordless phones is still a
relatively rare thing; how many people do *you* know that own scanners
who are within range of your cordless phone? And of those, how many 
are
sophisticated enough to know how to program the scanner for cordless?
So my feeling is generally its not a big deal, and if you do have 
something
very important and personal to say, you might want to go to a payphone
anyway.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 11:26:45 -0500
From: MSTRANDREW@aol.com
Subject: Area Code/Prefix Trivia


A friend of mine recently sent to me some notices from the news group
regarding changes in area code assignments.  I observed that some
trivia notes were also included regarding NPA assignments.  I wanted
to make you aware of another example pertaining to Port Roberts,
Washington.  Point Roberts is a six square mile section of land
located on a penisula south of Vancouver, Canada.  The Point is in the
United States because the portion is south of the 49th.  For many
years, the local prefix 946 was assigned to the 604 area code and
local coin phones were desinged to accept Canadian currency.  Sometime
in the early 1980s, the 946 prefix was reassigned to the 206 area.  I
have not been there since, so I cannot offer an update if the coin
phones were transfered to accept US currency.

I thought you would enjoy this.  

My friend asked that I reference his homepage for your reference.

http://www.america.net/~mikef/mikef.html


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The last I heard, which was some time
ago, 604-946 and 206-946 both got you the same thing in Point Roberts.
I think directory assistance via 206 or 604 were both available also.
Did you know it is impossible to travel from Point Roberts to anywhere
else in the United States by automobile without going through Canada?
School kids there go to school 'around the bend' in a nearby area in
Washington State, but to do so, their school bus has to enter Canada,
drive a few miles east, then drive back into the USA again, the same
as anyone else wanting to drive to the next (USA) town over.    PAT]

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

From: chuckc@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Chuck Cairns)
Subject: Is Origin Cell on a Cellular Call Logged?
Date: 16 Feb 1995 16:52:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site


Is the origin cell on a cellular call logged?


Best Regards, 

cc


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To find out the answer to this, I 
turned
to our resident expert, Kevin Mitnick ... <g> ... he says they are, 
unfortunatly. Uh, I know this is a rude question to ask, but have you
some reason to wish they were not?  PAT]

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

From: rich@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Richard Wildman)
Subject: Re: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder
Date: 16 Feb 1995 16:24:13 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site


Here are two updates.

After my original posting I received about 14 responses, most of which
had similar horror stories to tell about MCI billing problems.

As I mentioned previously, the bill was paid in full by credit card in
January.  This week (of 2/5), we had a phone call from MCI where we
were told we had not paid our bill -- I interrupted and told the
woman, "Yes, we had, by credit card."  "We already have the credit
card billing with the MCI payment on it" -- the exact amount she was
saying we still owed!  She hesitated a moment, and then said, oh yes,
I see it now!  Makes one wonder just how complicated a form she is
looking at, and what is wrong with their programmers if such a field
is not checked before the bill is flagged as not paid!

In addition, yesterday, Feb. 9, we received notice in the mail warning
us that our bill would go to a collection agency if we did not pay.
[This is the second mail from MCI in the past week -- we did receive a
listing of calls made, though it did not appear to be a bill -- my
guess is that this resulted from an emailing to an MCI employee whose
address I pulled off of a news group, and who faxed the original
posting to MCI's Consumer Executive Customer Relations (Residential).]
In any case, my wife called this time.  She got ahold of a woman and
explained the situation to her.  But no, the woman said, her records
did not show we had paid.  She, in turn, called another office, who
then told her, yes, we had paid!  The woman assured my wife that the
problem would be cleared up.  We are not holding our breath.

And the second update.

We received a nice letter of apology from MCI's Denver office
yesterday (2/14), along with a $25 check for local or MCI phone
service!

Unfortunately, also yesterday, two MCI bills arrived, both for the
same exact amount we paid by credit card in January.  And sure enough,
one bill was to our old address (old by five years) -- the Post Office
evidently caught it and delivered to our current address.

My wife, glutton for punishment that she is, called the MCI number
listed on the bills.  Again, it was not clear to the woman she talked
to that we had paid the bill.  The MCI employee did say our account
was being transferred.  This did jive with what was stated in the
apology -- that U.S. West had sold out their rural service (we have a
cabin) to PTI, and that this had happened last October (fits month
problem started), and then (MCI) had made a series of errors that we
had been experiencing.  It is interesting that MCI thinks they are
transferring our service, since we terminated their service after
paying the bill.  The woman said she was going to flag our account so
that we would not keep getting mail and phone calls (where have I
heard that before).

This situation must be an example of the notorious "corner case".


Life goes on,

RW 

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

From: lars@spectrum.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs
Date: 16 Feb 1995 10:07:46 -0800
Organization: Rockwell International - CMC Network Products


In article <telecom15.75.8@eecs.nwu.edu> Mikeboyd@voyager.cris.com 
(Mike_Boyd) writes:

> ....  Because of the way that the costs are separated 
jurisdictionally,
> and given the subsequent wide discretion of the PUC in setting 
rates, intra-
> state and interstate access charges for a given LEC may vary 
greatly. For 
> example, terminating a minute of switched traffic from IXC "A" to 
end
> user "Z" may cost the IXC 3 cents if the call is interstate and 8 
cents if 
> it is an intrastate call.

I have always been amazed at the complexity of ratemaking.  Looking
from high above, the local access part of a long distance call is a
local business call, and should be billed as such by the LEC. 
(Strictly 
speaking, if the call originates from a residence, the originating
access segment is a local residential call.) Of course, this 
originating 
segment should be paid by the caller on the LEC bill.

The IXCs do get some specialized services provided on their trunks,
and they probably should be charged for those; obviously it is simpler
for the IXC to get a validated originating billing number handed in
with the call than to have to do their own subscriber authentication,
but it seems to me that it should be optional for the IXC do make this
"make or buy" decision.

Since the cost of a timed local business call is about one or two 
cents per 
minute, the access charges should be in the range two to four cents.
If that is what FCC sets for interstate access fees, it seems to me
that they are staffed with people who can add and subtract.

We should all lobby for some improved sanity in this area as we move 
into
the "open network" where many subscribers want to get the same types
of processing options that carriers have been getting.


Lars Poulsen   Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM
Rockwell Network Systems Phone:        +1-805-562-3158
7402 Hollister Avenue   Telefax:      +1-805-968-8256
Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Internets: designed and built while you wait

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

From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison)


Subject: Re: Local Calling Areas
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 
guest)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 22:23:37 GMT


Mark Rudholm (rudholm@aimla.com) wrote:

> Here in the Los Angeles area, GTE and Pacific Bell offer flat-rate
> calling to residential customers for "Zone 1" and "Zone 2."
> Basically, if you are calling anywhere inside about 18 miles from a
> flat-rate line, the call is free and unmetered.  If you live on or
> near the shoreline, you could theoretically only have 50% the "free"
> calling area of someone who lived at least 18 miles from the ocean,
> since half of your 18 mile radius could be out on the Pacific.

Well, first of all, it's approximately 12 miles, not 18.  0-8 miles is
Zone 1, 8-12 is Zone 2, and 12-17 is Zone 3.  Over 17 is "local toll,"
until you cross your LATA boundary.  The distinction between Zones 1
and 2 is no longer meaningful.

> Since the "basic monthly fee" is in theory supposed to cover those
> "local" calls, aren't those of us on the shoreline getting cheated,
> since we pay the same basic-rate?  Should unmeasured service 
therefore
> cost less if you live near the ocean?

> I'm curious to know what everyone thinks of my idea.

Well, in a word, dream on.  There are other factors that you have
neglected, like population density.  Lots of people live near the
coast, in far denser concentration than most places 24 miles inland.
There's also the fact that even with half or more of your calling area
consisting of open water, you still have more people within 12 miles
than in the entire eastern half of the state.  Besides that, if we
gave you credit for the so-called useless open water in your local
calling area, we would then have to charge you toll rates to call the
local dolphins, porpoises, and whales when they get cell phones.
Besides that, you get to have the pleasure of watching guys with
unbelievable tans walk up to one another and say, "Duude, like, your
surfboard is ringing.  Are you gonna answer it?"


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

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

From: e9321452@student.uq.oz.au (Marcus Lee)
Subject: Re: New Motorola Micro-tac Elite AMPS Cellphone
Date: 15 Feb 1995 05:13:31 GMT
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland


king@wildebeest.cig.mot.com (Steven King) writes:

> aj.knox@auckland.ac.nz (Andrew Knox) publicly declared:

>> Motorola New Zealand is apparently about to launch a new AMPS 
cellphone
>> called the Microtac Elite.

>> I would be quite interested to know whether anyone has any details
>> about this phone or about pricing of it throughout the world.

Motorola's MicroTAC Elite is the latest entry into the competitve
pocket phone category and is one of the lightest phones available
today throughout the world. At a mere 113 grams, the MicroTAC Elite
actually weighs less than a D-cell battery. The MicroTAC Elite uses
the new lithium ion battery technology offering great talk time from
very small batteries and an optional headset jack to provide handsfree
operations.  The recommended retail price is between $1500 and $2000
AUS (Prob be $1500 when it is released here in Aust by the end of the
1st quarter, looking at how much I bought my GSM International 8200
for).

"Only 113grams (with slim Lithium Ion battery). Revolutionary battery
technology gives longer talktime Menu with icons for easy use. Data
capable."

"When the first MicroTAC went on sale in 1989, it was the smallest and
lightest portable phone ever. The crown for lightest phone has rested
on a variety of heads since then but Motorola intends to wrest it
back. The contender is the 113g MicroTAC Elite. Although it's an
analogue phone, the little Motorola has an optional digital answering
machine which greets callers with your voice and allows them to leave
short messages."

 LiIon Standard Battery LiIon XT Battery
Weight: 113grams  163grams

Batteries
Standard LiIon Talk Time: 60mins Standby Time: 10hrs
LiIon XT Talk Time:   120mins Standby Time: 20hrs
Power Watts: 0.6W
Battery Strength indicator: YES
Charger: Internal fast charger, Two Pocket IntelliCharge rapid charger 
is 
  incl.

Memory Features/Positions
Scroll search (list of no.'s):  YES
Alphanumeric:   YES 99 locations
Numeric:   YES
Scratchpad memory:  YES

Dialing
Keypad:    Large well spaced tactile keys. 
    Selectable tones.
Last number recall:  YES remembers last 10
Auto Redial:   YES on system busy
Any Key Answer:   Flip activates call

Display
Screen size:   2lines x 7 characters
Call in absence display: YES
Signal Strength Indicator: YES

Other Features
Data Capabilities:  Can accept a variety of Motorola data acc.
Ring volume control:  YES
Vibrating Capabilities:  YES

Extras
Nine selectable ring tones to differentiate your phone from others
Answering machine and internal charger, optional handset adaptor

Security
Lock:    YES


Heeeh. That was taken from a variety of publicatons.  If you want more
info, just ask, I've got more detailed details about the phone.


Marcus Lee      Ph: +61-7-395-1479
University of Queensland Australia       +61-41-119-5358
Internet: e9321452@student.uq.edu.au   Fax:+61-7-843-2937

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

Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 10:24:29 CST
From: kevin@carina.cray.com (Kevin Bluml)
Subject: Directory Assistance Direct Connections


USWest now has an offering in MN where a business can set up to pay
for the dialing of their number from 411 type services. I believe they
also offer the usual caller pays to have them dial for you. I heard an
ad the other day saying businesses could set this up and pay 35 cents
to have the call connected directly to them when someone called for 
the
number.

Also saw MCIs new ad for 1-900-Callinfo (or whatever the letters
were..)  But it is now 900 and there is a note saying it is from MCI
and I believe they even mentioned MCI in the voiceover. Still 75 cents
and basically the same commercial otherwise.


 From:     Kevin V. Bluml  - Cray Research Inc. 612-683-3036   
USmail     655 - Lone Oak Drive, Eagan, MN 55121 
Internet   kevin.bluml@cray.com  UUCP - uunet!cray!kevin

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

From: ndt@world.std.com (New Dimensions in Tech.)
Subject: US-MA-Boston Principal Technology Consultant, Recruiter
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 15:39:49 GMT


PRINCIPAL TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANT
JOB #00695

Our client, a very successful business/financial organization, located
in the BOSTON area, is searching for a Chief Scientist/Principal
Technology Consultant.

S/he will have a very heavy background in all areas of COMMUNICATIONS:

    *High Speed Fiber Optic LANS
    *High performance Internetworking Routers
    *Frame Relay 
    *ATM
    *Internet 
    *FDDI
    *TCP/IP

This position reports to a very senior person. 

We are searching for an executive who also has the ability to manage a
small group of engineers.

This position is RELOCATABLE.

Salary in the six figures.

  All of our positions require that you have three or more years of
  professional working experience and that you be a U.S. Citizen or
  Permanent Resident.  At the current time, we have no entry-level
  part-time, or contracting positions available.

  If your qualifications match the above specifications, please
  forward your resume immediately, referencing Job #I00695, via
  fax, U.S. mail or email (ASCII only please) to:


  Beverly Kahn                       
  New Dimensions in Technology, Inc. tel:        617-639-0866 
  74 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 101      fax:        617-639-0863 
  Marblehead, MA 01945               email: ndt@world.std.com           

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #101
******************************

                                                                      
