Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Private Line different issue
private line: a journal of inquiry into the telephone system
private line
5150 Fair Oaks Blvd. #101-348
Carmichael, CA 95608 USA
privateline@delphi.com
(916) 978-0810 FAX
$27 a year for 6 issues. Mexican and Canadian subscriptions are
$31 and overseas subscribers have to pay $44 :(
A sample of the current issue is $4.00.
................................................................................
I. Editorial Page
II. Updates and Corrections
III. Letters
IV. The Internet Bridge
V. Cell Phone Basics, Part II
A. Toll Fraud
VI. An Interview With Damien Thorn
VII. The entire Digital Telephony Bill
VIII The Text of 18 USC 1029
IX. The Text of 47 CFR 22.919
(The regulation prohibiting cloning)
I. EDITORIAL PAGE
What's All This Stuff About The Law?
1. Welcome to a very different issue of private line. It contains
much more on telecom law than I have ever put in. Much more, in
fact, than I ever wanted to put in. The first mission of private
line is to advance technical knowledge, especially for beginners.
But I promised many people that I would include the text of the
entire bill in this issue. I think that people should read this
legislation. The problem was that I underestimated its size. To my
horror the bill took up five full pages in unreadable eight point
type once I keyboarded and scanned it in. Check out page 82 to get
a sample. I then converted the text to nine point type. Better.
That resulted, however, in nine pages. Gulp.
2. Well, since the article would take up so much room in unedited
form, I decided to expand the magazine to 32 pages this issue.
This allowed me to put in some comments and a few charts to make
the bill a little more understandable. This was a very tough bill
to make sense out of and organize. I used to do legal research for
a living. My special resentment of this bill has to do with its
complexity and the fact that an average per son had little chance
of dealing with it when it was created. I think you'll see what I
mean when you read it. By the way, my comments are meant to
breakup the layout of the text -- nothing more. I know every one
has their own opinion.
3. I'm writing this on April 6, 1995. I'm up to 67 subscribers and
I am very happy about this. Subscriptions, back issue orders and
news stand sales have now covered the cost of printing Number 4
and 5. That's a tremendous development. It gives me real
encouragement to go forward and better the magazine. Thank you
everybody.
4. The next issue will go back to regular telephone stuff. It will
feature a field guide to outside plant equipment. This is the
issue that I have wanted to do for a year! I am really looking
forward to putting It together. It may include as many as twenty
photographs. You'll be able to use it, for instance, to identify
all those mysterious green telco boxes by the side of the road.
1'11 have pictures, too, of things I've mentioned before. Like
open wire and solar powered payphones and party line phones. I'11
also have an article on how to build your own telephone system for
$25. private line marks its first anniversary in June. Thanks
again and I'11 see you all again in July.
UPDATES AND CORRECTIONS
5. More magazines and newsletters: On The Line is the magazine
of the California Payphone Association. It is a California
publication but it does have news from around the country. Similar
in feel to Public Communications. Should you get both? I think so.
Send them five dollars for a sample and judge for yourself. Their
address is: On The Line, c/o California Payphone Association, 2610
Crow Canyon Rd., Suite 150, San Ramon, CA 94583.
6. Telecom Publishing Group produces a number of interesting and
very expensive newsletters and reports. The Report on AT&T, for
example, claims to be the only newsletter that "focuses on AT&T
and its bloody turf battles" It comes out twice a month. It goes
along with The Report on AT&T FaxAlert; a bulletin by fax that
comes out within 24 hours of any surprise move by the long
distance carrier. Sounds great but it will cost you $697 a year.
They also produce Information Networks, Mobile Data Report, FCC
Report, Telco Business Report, Local Competition Report, State
Telephone Regulation Report and Advanced Wireless Communications.
These range from $397 to $591 a year for 24 issues. Oh, well. The
one good thing is that they don't charge $35 for a sample like the
Phillips' newsletters. They'll send you a free copy of one if you
really want it. Telecom Publishing Group, 1101 King Street, Suite
444, Alexandria, VA 22314. 1-800-739-452-8011 (orders) or (703)
739-6437.
7. Blacklisted! 411 is an interesting, 2600 like magazine that's
produced quarterly in southern California. They call themselves
"The Official Hackers Magazine!" You can order it through the
Tower chain now or in the future, possibly, through Fine Print
Distributors. Or send $4.95 for a sample to Blacklist! 411, P.O.
Box 2506, Cypress, CA 90630. (310) 596-4673.
8. Maurice Onraet mailed me copies of EDN and Electronic
Design. EDN bills itself as "The Design Magazine of the
Electronics Industry." It's a monthly that touches on a few
telecom subjects from time to time. The Cahners Publishing Company
publishes it 38 times a year. Supposedly $120 a year to non-
qualified subscribers in the U.S., though it looks like you could
get a free sub. Write for a sample: EDN, 8773 South Ridgeline
Blvd., Highlands Ranch, CO 80126-2329. (303) 470-4445. Electronic
Design is a real find. It's published by Penton Publishing, Inc.
This twice monthly magazine occasionally features articles that
directly impact telecom. Goldberg's article on PCS in the February
6, 1995 edition, for example, was a better read than a similar
article in the expensive IEEE Personal Communications. Electronic
Design has a $105 suggested subscription price but, again, I think
you ought to try for a free sub. I really recommend that you write
or call for a sample. Penton Publishing Subscription Lockbox, P.O.
Box 96732, Chicago, Il 60693. (216) 696-7000.
9. Cellular Marketing is another resource for cellular
information. It's a monthly that David Crowe says is now taking a
more technical orientation. Annual subscriptions are $29 in the US
and $39 in Canada and Mexico. Their subscription address is Argus
Circulation Center, PO Box 41528, Nashville, TN 37204. The
editorial address is 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 650,
Englewood, CO 80111.
10. For you web types, AT&T is offering some of their industry
newsletters on the web for two months. In a March 6, 1995 press
release, AT&T promised that their home page would carry samples
of 24 technical and business newsletters that it produces for its
internal business units and AT&T Bell Laboratories. Sample issues
of the publications would be accessible without charge in April
and May. In return, users will be asked to evaluate the material.
"The trial will determine how useful the newsletters will be to
individuals and institutions outside of AT&T," according to Ralph
Quinn, of the AT&T Information Services Network. "After the trial,
the publications will be offered on the Internet at special
charter prices." This seems a mixed blessing. Some of these
publications may have had a closed subscriber list before. But
AT&T will undoubtedly charge some very high rates once the trial
is over. Oh, well. Their URL is:
http://www.att.com/newsls/index.html.
For inquiries about the trial, call the AT&T Information Services
Network at 908-582-2619, or send E-mail to rmq@library.att.com.
11. There's been quite a bit of interest in the telecom related
magazine list. I've decided to consolidate all the magazines
described in one easy to read list. I'll update it as I get
additions or corrections. Send me $2.00 (cash only, please) and a
number 10 S.A.S.E. and I'll send you the current list. In
addition, I'll extend your subscription by one issue if you can
supply me some current, detailed information on any of the
following: Telekom Praxis (German), Funkschau (German),
Commutations & Refutations (French), Philips Telecommunications
Review, Electrical Communication (published by Alcatel), Ericsson
Review; Siemens Telecom Report; Northern Telecom Magazine, or
Telesis (Canadian). I will also extend your sub if you tell me
about any other telecom magazine that my readers would be
interested in.
12. I've made a wonderful discovery! The McGraw-Hill
Telecommunications Factbook is the best overall book about the
telephone system that I have yet found. It is current and in
print. Nothing on coin line services or cellular but otherwise a
great read. It even explains tariffs. Good, clear diagrams. I
recommend it without reservation. Around $30. Get this book. The
rent can wait. Here's a quotation from a comprehensive chapter on
telecommunications fundamentals. This small section is about PBX
operation in a private network:
"In the simplest case, referred to as point-to-point tie-line
service, users access a trunk between two locations by dialing an
access code (unique to the tie trunk between those two locations),
followed by the desired station extension. For example a user on a
PBX in Chicago calling a PBX in New York City might dial 8-368-
xxxx. The digit 8 accesses a tie trunk group, 368 selects a
dedicated tie trunk between the Chicago and New York City PBXs,
and xxxx represents the called party's extension. A user on a PBX
in Washington, DC, might dial 8-479-xxxx to reach that same New
York City party over dedicated tie trunks between Washington, DC,
and New York City. A unique exchange number would thus exist for
each called location in this rudimentary private network,
depending upon the location of the originating call. A private
network call from Chicago to Washington, DC, could also be
completed via the New York City PBX if the calling party first
accesses the New York PBX and then manually dials the same access
code for Washington, DC, that a New York caller would use. This
type of service is known as manual dial tandem tie-line service
and it cannot automatically route calls through multiple PBXs to
take maximum advantage of network transmission facilities, or seek
alternate routes if first choice trunks are busy."
Great stuff. And that's just two paragraphs out of 374 pages
worth of information. The McGraw-Hill Telecommunications Factbook
is published by McGraw-Hill, Inc. Joseph A. Pecar, Roger
J.O'Connor and David A. Garbin are the authors. The ISBN number
is 0-07-049183-6. It's a paperback and it cost me $29.95. You
should be able to order it from any book store since it is in
print. You can also call McGraw Hill at 1-800-822-8158 to order.
Failing that, try writing to them at Order Services, 860 Taylor
Station Road, Blacklick, Ohio, 43004. And no, I don't make a dime
off this. Your editor pays for all of his books.
13. ImOkey submitted an article from the Numismatic News about
coin phone tokens. I'll reprint it next issue when I get more
space.
14. A few notes on the Roseville Telephone Company Museum. The
museum is open from 10 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays only. I
recommended seeing an antique store that had old telephones. The
lady who ran American Antiques has since passed away. The
collection of old telephones got moved out of that building and
sold to private collectors.
15. I stated in the first issue that Ericksson digital were
installed in many Motorola built cell sites. Uh, no. Ericksson
installed AXE 10's for many non-wireline carriers. The wireline
carriers tended to use Motorola equipment. Many non wireline
carriers use Ericksson. Motorola or Ericsson would only install
their own equipment. To take this further, each carrier builds
its own base station, maintains its own tower and uses their own
MTSO. One carrier will keep functioning even if something happens
to the other.
16. I don't want to turn private line into The Payphone Journal
but there's something I need to discuss at length. People tired of
coin line signaling can turn to the next article. I've gone over
the differences between COCOT and telco payphones at some length.
Much of that discussion revolved around my argument that red
boxing wasn't possible from COCOTs. I contended that in the case
of a 1+ call, for example, the payphone itself fixed the rates and
checked the coins deposited. It didn't need, consequently, to
signal any network resource like ACTS. A red box tone, therefore,
would go into nowhere and do nothing as a result.
17. Well, what if you call an operator? What if you wanted them to
place the call for you? What now? What happens when she asks you
to deposit $1.25? It's most likely that the standard redbox tone
gets delivered over the voice channel to the operator. You don't
hear it on your end because the audio gets muted when it's
transmitted. Many COCOT owners contract with AT&T or other
mainstream companies to provide operator services. I cannot
imagine a special tone to accommodate COCOTs. The bottom line? Red
boxing may work from certain older COCOTs that haven't been
updated. Ones that don't use a coin validator or circuitry that
either mutes the mouthpiece or filters out any quarter tone
originating from the transmitter.
18. Going further, the voice channel may also be used to initiate
coin return and coin collect. These would have to communicate
directly with the COCOT since there isn't any special equipment at
the CO to trigger a COCOT, unlike the telco payphone with its
dedicated coin line. So what might these COCOT frequencies be? How
about a steady tone of 697Hz & 1633Hz for coin return, 770Hz &
1633Hz for splash back (alerts a telco operator that the call
needs special handling) and 852Hz & 1633Hz for coin collect? These
tones differ considerably from the telco ones, such as those
published in the last issue. You should recognize these tones.
They are silver box tones, the "A", "B", and "C" keys
respectively. Any extended DTMF keypad should generate them. See
what you get for reading patents? Check out patent 4,924,497, Pay
Station Telephone Interface Circuits at your nearest Patent and
Trademark Libary or send $3.00 to the PTO to get all 33 pages of
it. Check or money order to: Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks, Box 9, Washington, DC 20231.
19. There is one caveat to add to the above discussion. The patent
involved mentions standard red box tones. Yet the other three are
different from the usual telco tones. Are the normal tones now
obsolete or do operater service provider equipment distinguish
between COCOT and telco? They should be able to produce different
tones but I don't know if they do. COCOTs are registered with
different databases to prevent such things as calling collect to a
payphone. It is possible that a particular tone is sent depending
on the ANI.
20. I mention this confusion over signaling because we are moving
toward the next generation of payphone signals: digital. On The
Line reports that several telecom companies are working with
Pacific Bell to "lay the technological groundwork for further
competition in local service in California." That includes testing
the delivery of COCOT payphone signals over digital lines. Whoa.
Amtel, a large COCOT provider, is the sole private payphone
participant in these tests. They'll work the COCOT angle while the
rest of the companies "develop standards for interconnection and
interoperability of multiple networks, the processes and systems
required to support these standards, and the delivery of support
services such as 911 . . ." Yeah, yeah, yea. Back to the digital
line.
21. ISDN and Switched 56 need only an extra twisted pair. The
telco doesn't have to put in any special wiring to support these
services -- just two sets of conventional twisted pair. It may
indeed be possible to have a public picture phone in the near
future, say around the turn of the century. Stay tuned.
III LETTERS
22. Dear private line,
I'm reading the latest issue of private line and have a few
comments for you. First of all, pages 36 and 49 are totally blank
in my copy, not even the page numbers are there. I hope this is a
problem limited to just a few copies.
Next, debit vs. credit cards. I know this is confusing to folks
who don't spend their lives as accountants, or, in my case,
programming accounting software. Debit and credit have nothing to
do with positive or negative balances -- they mean the left and
right side of the ledger. The value of the potential calls on the
cards is an asset -- one increases the accounting for assets by
increasing the debit side of the balance sheet part of the ledger.
The bill you run up on your credit card is a liability -- which
are increased on the right or credit side. The confusion stems
from banking. Customer accounts in banks are actually liabilities
to the banks, so crediting one's account means an increase in the
bank's liability. And that's just the debit, or left side of the
ledger. . .
Enough accounting. You note how the collector appeal of phone
cards has artificially jacked up the prices. In Japan. where the
whole thing got started (Local phone calls are dirt cheap in
Japan), and before the sales tax, I and S yen coins disappeared
and the 10 yen coin - the cost of a local 2 or 3 minute call, was
on its way out) calling cards are usually a bargain. Sure, there
are collector cards, but the generic variety buys more message
units that a similar amount of 10 and 50 yen coins.
Regarding magazines -- I wrote an article in Poppin' Zits!,
later reprinted in Whole Earth Review, about hacking subscriptions
to invisible literature (or specialized trade magazines). At one
point, my girlfriend and I collected subs to over 100 of them, and
we never paid more than a stamp. I got my start in programming
after devouring issues of Data Nation and related publications. I
could fax you a copy, and if you're interested in reprinting some
of it, I might be able to find the original file and email it to
you. Keep up the great work.
Jerod Pore jerod23@netcom.com
23. "There were at least 60 defective copies of private line
Number 5. That's out of a press run of 1000. I found out about it
after I mailed my subscribers copies. Those with a defective copy
should drop me a line and 1'11 mail you a good copy with all the
pages. The terminology of calling cards is confusing. I may run
through the terms again when I do an article on the switches
involved."
24. Dear private line,
I just received private line number 5 in the mail today. I
think your list of magazines and newsletters is excellent. You did
miss Cellular Marketing Magazine. While in the past this was
probably more fluffy than Cellular Business (which isn't as bad as
your reader says), it now has three excellent columnists: Andy
Seybold, Lawrence Harte, who wrote a book on digital cellular, and
myself. (Well, two excellent columnists and one mediocre ...
myself.) It is trying to take a more technical focus.
Your article on cellular fell down on the concept of
validation. First of all, ESNs and MlNs cannot be fully validated
independently, they are only valid as a pair. Secondly, the HLR is
part of the home system, and is only one of three components that
are used in validation. The MSC (MTSO) has contact with the
subscriber. The VLR contains a database of roamers (conceptually,
it is usually physically part of the MSC). The HLR is remote (for
roamers) and contains the 'master record' for each subscriber. The
term HLR has been around a lot longer than Coral Systems and is I
believe a CCIT term (now renamed ITU-T, International
Telecommunications Union).
The databases developed by GTE and EDS are not as important as
they used to be. Switches and HLRs that comply to the IS-41
standard can avoid them completely. The GTE and EDS systems did
contain lists of individual MlNs and, more importantly, ESNs that
were bad. However. any validation of part of the MIN/ESN pair is
less good than going whole hog. The reason why GTE and EDS
developed those databases is that it took so long for the cellular
industry to develop the standards and networks to allow full real-
time validation; i.e. TIA Interim Standard IS-41 running over
mostly SS7 networks.
David Crowe 71574.3157@compuserve.com
25 "David Crowe writes Cellular Networking Perspectives. Many of
the terms he discusses above are explained and diagrammatically
represented in a special issue of that newsletter called "IS-41
Explained ". You can write for a free copy of it by sending a
request to Cellular Networking Perspectives, 2636 Toronto Crescent
NW, Calgary, AB T2N 3WI."
26. Dear private line,
Please accept this sample copy. As you can see, we have
advertising only. Buyers and sellers of telecom equipment. The
"Yellow Paper" of broker/dealers. I'm not sure I under
stand your publication but please send it to me and I'll send you
a 3d class subscription (2 years.) Thanks.
Judy B. Smith Telephone International, Inc.
27. Thanks for the sub. I don't understand this publication
myself. It's not a hacker zine or a corporate telecom magazine.
Even my subscribers don't quite understand it, as evidenced by the
following.
28. TO: Mr. TOM FARLEY
FROM: CHRIS THORNTON
I AM GLAD TO HEAR FROM YOU AND I DID RECEIVE THE lST. ISSUE. THE
INFORMATION LOOKED VERY MUCH LIKE THE CELLULAR PHONE TECHNICAL
INFO IN THE MOTOROLA CELLULAR PHONE TECHNICIAN GUIDE, WHICH IS THE
SAME INFO THAT IT SEEMS EVERY ONE IS AFTER IN THE CELLULAR UNDER
WORLD. BUT I AM NEW AT HACKING, PHONE PHREAKING, ACCESSING GOV.
COMPUTERS AND ETC. HOW DO I PUT TO USE THE INFO YOU PROVIDED IN
PRIVATE LINE? PLEASE INCLUDE A STEP BY STEP PROCESS. YOU COULD
USE THE WORD "MAYBE" TO COVER LEGAL ASPECTS IN FRONT OF SENTENCES
LIKE "MAYBE THIS IS METHOD A PERSON WOULD USE TO ACCESS & USE
ANOTHER PERSON'S CELLULAR PHONE OR GOVERNMENT COMPUTER MODEM PHONE
#. AND PRODUCE DETAILED EXACT STEPS TO GAIN ACCESS AND WHERE TO
GET THE EQUIPMENT MANUALS TO GET ACCESS. IN MY OPINION YOUR
FINANCIAL PROBLEMS WILL GO AWAY AS DID THE 2600 MAG WHEN THEY
BASICALLY DID THE ABOVE BUT NOW 2600 HAS BECAME A LAME DUCK
BECAUSE THEY GOT AWAY FROM WHAT MADE THEM THE KIND OF STEP BY STEP
GENERAL AND TECHNICAL INFO LISTED ABOVE. I AM INTERESTED IN THE
GOV. INTELLIGENCE, TREASURY, FEDERAL RESERVE, GOV. BIOCOMPUTER,
PHONE COMPANIES' MODEM PHONE #'S /PASSWORDS AND ACCESSING LOCAL
T.V.A., GOV. COMPUTERS THEN NETWORKING TO OTHER GOV. COMPUTERS
WHY? TO BE CHARGED ONLY A LOCAL CALL ON A PHONE BILL .
29. "HMMM. WHERE TO START? SHOULD I? THE INFORMATION contained in
the cellular article last issue was derived from all of the
materials I cited. I do all my own research and writing. It may
look similar to what others have done but it is not the same. The
AMPS call processing diagram, for example, is quite similar to a
chart first produced by OKI and later copied by such people as
Gibson in Cellular Mobile Radiotelephones. The original chart was,
to me, unreadable and aimless. I thought I did a good job of
taking that information and making it understandable. Maybe not.
I have not seen the Motorola manual you refer to. I can tell you
that I haven't had any luck getting manual retailers to advertise
or to correspond. Maybe you'll have better luck: Automated Info:
Technical Manual Experts (619) 931-0259 or (800) 331-6939; Phone
Guys USA (714)-843-9999 (800) 322-5443; or Technicom (908) 446-
0317. There's also Ventura Electronics but I don't have any
current info.
I explained in the last issue that I'm not interested in
writing specific hacking articles. There are too many things I
want to cover in general first. In addition, some of my articles
may not have any practical application. I wrote about post pay in
the first issue, for example, because no one else had written
about it, not because the article would be practical.
I do encourage people, however, to contribute anything they
have written that is specific or utilitarian. It would help make
private line a more interesting magazine. To this date, though,
there have not been any articles submitted to me for publication.
Writing an article might help you gain some of the practicality you
so desire. Pick a subject. Research it. Do some field work. Write
out your notes and then combine them to produce a story. The only
way that I really learn something is by experimenting and then
writing."
IV. THE INTERNET BRIDGE
I'm starting this service and column to help subscribers who
have technical questions that Damien or I can't answer. I'm limiting
it to those with no net access, those who can't take advantage of
the various telecom groups. I'll post your question to
comp.dcom.telecom.tech; the most technical of the USENET newsgroups.
Send me a #10 S.A.S.E. with your question. I'll engage in the
discussion needed to get an answer. Be prepared to wait -- some of
the best questions go unanswered or languish for weeks before a
response comes through. I'll then drop the reply, if any, into the
mail once I get it. Don't be suprised if the answer produces more
questions on your part. Let's run through an example of how this
worked recently. I got a letter and a old Specialized Products
catalog last week from a subscriber in Minnesota. The reader wrote,
in part, the following:
"I have a question. Note on page 167, in the second paragraph
from the top, the text states, 'Additionally, a momentary send
2713Hz button is provided to actuate Bell Model 829 Loopback
devices. The AM-44 fully complies with Bell System Technical
Reference (BSTR) 41009.' What is a Bell 829 Loopback device? What
does it do? How does a person access it? Can it generate ringbacks?
Or test dial speeds? Or provide loopback circuits for testing
circuit quality? Does the mentioned Technical Reference provide
insight?"
Hmmm. Another mystery. Just what I needed. I posted the basic
question to the group. Two days later I got this private reply from
Ken Wells in the Marshall Islands:
"The last time I saw an 829 was seven years ago. I am not sure
how many are installed these days. But I am sure there are still
thousands out there. The 829 was used to terminate a 4-wire analog
circuit at the customer premise. Essentially, it was a demarcation
point. The 829 could be looped from the central office with the
2713 tone. It could also be looped from either end of the circuit.
I can remember looping circuits in Huntsville, Alabama (Marshall
Space Flight Center) to all parts of the country. We inject a tone
and loop the distant end and send and receive tones for testing.
Before the Bell System breakup, the 'telephone company' would
install their modems (2096A for example) on the 'customer' side of
the 829. Most 829s I worked with were Western Electric. Some later
models were made by Telco Systems (called 829AF). Now, the local
phone company takes the circuit from the long haul carrier and
terminates it. The customer no longer has to buy or lease the
analog modem from Telco.
There were several versions of 829. Some were fixed level.
Others had adjustable levels (attenuation from WECO). Telco
Systems units required power and provided gain also. One version
had front panel jacks and another did not. I think we used 829B
mostly. I guess the short answer is that an 829 terminates a 4-
wire analog circuit. I think I have a Bell System Practice on the
829. If you are interested or just curious, I will be happy to fax
it to you. Just e-mail your fax number. No problem whatsoever."
As it turned out, Ken didn't have the BSP on hand but he
graciously sent the same information from an AT&T manual. The
BSPs, by the way, were Bell System standards, uniform practices
and procedures used by the Baby Bells. Bellcore still publishes
these in an updated form for many phone companies to follow.
Adding to our discussion was a public reply from Wayne Huffman:
"The 829 is used to test the levels on a voice-grade analog
private line -- there used to be tons of these. You accessed the
circuit (in the AT&T C.O., we used a SMAS panel -- I think that
stands for Switched Measurement Access System). You'd split the
circuit, and then send the 2713Hz tone. The 829 loopback unit,
installed where the line terminated at the customer premise, would
do exactly that -- loop the tx and rx pair together, to give you
continuity for testing. A 1004Hz tone was sent out the tx side,
and measured on the rx side, and compared against the circuit
layout card, which had the spec for that circuit. If all tested
well, we'd give it to the LEC to dispatch for a customer premise
trouble. Sending the 2713Hz again dropped the loopback. If you
were at the customer premises, you could hear the relay click, and
there was a 'LPBK' light to show the line was looped. Sometimes,
that was the only trouble -- someone left it looped. These units
are small slide-in cards, often mounted in a single 'Teletrend'
housing with a brick AC adapter. Most of this stuff is digital
now, I think."
I think these responses answer the questions put, don't you?
At least enough to go further? I had been putting off learning
about four wire signaling but I guess I'll have to read up on it
now. Would you like to see more of this kind of article? As a
footnote, I sent both men copies of private line for their
trouble. In addition, it turns out that Ken has written a ten page
report on the 900 industry -- a how to guide. Non-corporate
material on this subject is hard to find. "The Straight Scoop on
the Pay-Per-Call Industry," is available for $10.00 from Kenneth
R. Wells, 1142 Auahi Street, Suite 2014, Honolulu, Hawaii. 96814
(Checks, money orders, VISA, MC) Or order from 1-800-482-FACT.
V. CELLULAR PHONE BASICS, PART II
We looked at AMPS and analog call processing last issue. Now
let's go digital. TDMA or time division multiple access is the
most commonly used digital cellular system in America. Call set up
is the same as for AMPS. A conversation gets passed to TDMA once
the call gets going. TDMA systems and most TDMA phones can handle
AMPS calls as well. TDMA's chief benefit comes from increasing
call capacity -- a channel can carry three conversations instead
of just one. But, you say, so can NAMPS, Motorola's analog system
that we looked at last issue. What's the big deal?
NAMPS can carry the same number of calls as most TDMA
systems. NAMPS though, has the same fading problems as normal
AMPS, it lacks the error correction that digital systems provide
and it isn't sophisticated enough to handle encryption or advanced
services. Things such as calling number identification, extension
phone service and messaging. In addition, you can't monitor a TDMA
conversation as easily as an analog call. So, there are other
reasons than call capacity to move to a different system. Many
people ascribe these benefits to TDMA because it is a digital
system. Yes and no.
Advanced features depend on digital but conserving bandwidth
does not. How's that? Three conversations get handled on a single
frequency. Call capacity increases. But is that a virtue of
digital? No, it is a virtue of multiplexing. A digital signal does
not automatically mean less bandwidth, in fact, it may mean more.
[1] Multiplexing means transmitting two or more conversations on
the same frequency at once. In this case, small parts of three
conversations get sent simultaneously. This is not the same as
NAMPS, which splits the frequency band into three discrete sub-
frequencies of 10khz apiece. TDMA uses the whole frequency to
transmit while NAMPS does not. NAMPS does not involve
multiplexing. And besides, TDMA is a hybrid system, combining both
analog and digital components. It must be since it uses the AMPS
protocol to set up calls. Despite what the marketing boys say,
only CDMA or code division multiple access is a fully digital
system. More on CDMA later. Let's look at some TDMA basics first.
We see that going digital doesn't mean anything special. A
multiplexed digital signal is what is key. Each frequency gets
divided into six repeating time slots or frames. Two slots in each
frame get assigned for each call. An empty slot serves as a guard
space. This may sound esoteric but it is not. Time division
multiplexing is a proven technology. It's the basis for T1, still
the backbone of digital transmission in this country. Using this
method, a T1 line can carry 24 separate phone lines into your
house or business with just an extra twisted pair. Demultiplexing
those conversations is no more difficult than adding the right
board to a PC. TDMA is a little different than TDM but it does
have a long history in satellite working.
What is important to understand is that the system
synchronizes each mobile with a master clock when a phone
initiates or receives a call. It assigns a specific time slot for
that call to use during the conversation. Think of a circus
carousel and three groups of kids waiting for a ride. The horses
represent a time slot. Let's say there are eight horses on the
carousel. Each group of kids gets told to jump on a different
colored horse when it comes around. One group rides a red horse,
one rides a white one and the other one rides a black horse. They
ride the carousel until they get off at a designated point. Now,
if our kids were orderly, you'd see three lines of children
descending on the carousel with one line of kids moving away. In
the case of TDMA, one revolution of the ride might represent one
frame. This precisely synchronized system keeps everyone's call in
order. This synchronization continues throughout the call. Timing
information is in every frame. Any digital scheme, though, is no
circus. The actual complexity of these systems is daunting. I
invite you to read further if you are interested. [2]
There are variations of TDMA. The only one that I am aware
of in America is E-TDMA. It's operated in Mobile, Alabama by Bell
South. Hughes Network Systems developed E-TDMA or Enhanced TDMA.
It runs on their equipment. Hughes developed much of their
expertise in this area with satellites. E-TDMA seems to be a
dynamic system. Slots get assigned a frame position as needed.
Let's say that you are listening to your wife or a girlfriend.
She's doing all the talking because you've forgotten her birthday.
Again. Your transmit path is open but it's not doing much. As I
understand it, "digital speech interpolation" or DSI stuffs the
frame that your call would normally use with other bits from other
calls. In other words, it fills in the quiet spaces in your call
with other information. DSI kicks in when your signal level drops
to a pre-determined level. Call capacity gets increased over
normal TDMA. This trick had been limited before to very high
density telephone trunks passing traffic between toll offices.
Their system also uses half rate vocoders, advanced speech
compression equipment that can double the amount of calls carried.
Code Division Multiple Access has many variants as well.
InterDigital, for example, produces a broadband CDMA system called
B-CDMA that is different from Qualcomm's narrowband CDMA system.
For this article, however, I'll just mention a few things. I
give references at the end of the article for those going further.
[3]
A CDMA system assigns a specific digital code to each user or
mobile on the system. It then encodes each bit of information
transmitted from each user. These codes are so specific that
dozens of users can transmit simultaneously on the same frequency
without interference to each other. They are so specific that
there is no need for adjacent cell sites to use different
frequencies as in AMPS and TDMA. Every cell site can transmit on
every frequency available to the wireline or non-wireline carrier.
CDMA, is also much less prone to interference than AMPS or TDMA.
That's because the specificity of the coded signals helps a CDMA
system treat other radio signals and interference as irrelevant
noise. Some of the details of CDMA are also interesting.
Qualcomm's CDMA system uses some very advanced speech
compression techniques, in particular, a variable rate vocoder.
Phil Karn, one of the principal engineers has written that it
"[O]perates at data rates of 1200, 2400, 4800 and 9600 bps. When a
user talks, the 9600 bps data rate is generally used. When the
user stops talking, the vocoder generally idles at 1200 bps so you
still hear background noise; the phone doesn't just 'go dead'. The
vocoder works with 20 millisecond frames, so each frame can be 3,
6, 12 or 24 bytes long, including overhead. The rate can be
changed arbitrarily from frame to frame under control of the
vocoder." This is really sophisticated technology. Expect CDMA to
get going this year in more markets.
As I understand it, the Los Angeles area has one carrier
providing CDMA right at the moment. In the Seattle area, NewVector
was to have a Qualcomm type CDMA system operating by now but that
date keeps getting pushed back. Bell Atlantic Mobile and NYNEX
Mobile recently announced that they will deploy CDMA throughout
their coverage areas but they gave no dates. My feeling is that
the future is with this technology.
Toll Fraud --
I promised a look at some current information on cell fraud
in the last issue. The information I found, though. doesn't make
much sense. The ranges of dollar amounts given by industry can
only be labeled as guesses. Before beginning, let's look at
telecom in general to give us some perspective. Last yet the FCC
held a hearing on telecommunication fraud. The report stated that
industry and Secret Service officials estimate that toll fraud
runs between I billion and 5 billion dollars a year 141 That's
against an annual billing of 175 billion in 1993. Let's take the
high figure and say that toll fraud takes 3.5% of industry
revenue. Figures on cell fraud vary widely as well. The Seattle
Post Intelligencer reported late last year that law enforcement
and industry officials claimed that cell fraud costs between 400
million and one billion dollars per year. The head of CTlA's
(Cellular Tele communications Industry Association) fraud task
force, however, told Newsday on November 30, 1994 that cell fraud
cost his industry a million dollars a day. I've seen that one
million dollar figure many times, in articles such as the San
Francisco Chronicle on November 1, 1994 and the Sacramento
Business Journal on October 31, 1994. We must assume that they
were reporting previous year's figures for reasons I explain
later. I've chosen to stay with this CTIA estimate because they
are the leading trade organization. Based on 9 billion dollars in
cellular billing in 1993, we come out with a figure of 4% in fraud
for the same year. I suspect these figures for several reasons.
The main problem with industry estimates and CTIA figures is that
they don't break down the figures. There is no way, therefore, to
distinguish between subscription fraud, stolen phone fraud or
access fraud. Everything gets lumped into the big category of
fraud. Everyone who ever stiffed a carrier to run up a bill or
stole a phone to call Indonesia is practicing cellular fraud. Yet
the CTIA makes believe that cell phone cloning is the number one
problem. I suspect that the real problem Is bad debt. There are
currently 25 million phones in America with over 27,000
subscribers signing up every day. A cellular dealer gets a
percentage from each person they sign up. I know they run credit
checks but I'd like to see some real accounting on the number of
bad accounts.
The CTIA, though, tightly controls the flow of most
information about the cellular industry. Even Standard and Poor's
Industry Surveys, a widely respected publication, is forced to use
CTIA figures to develop their reports on the cellular trade. 151
Let me run through an example of how hard it is to get any
information from them and how worthless it is once you get it.
New York carriers now require their customers to use PIN numbers
before making a call, In explaining reasons why, the CTIA came up
with some specific numbers for the first time. They told the Wall
Street Journal on February 3d that cellular operators lost $482
million to fraud in 1994, a 32% increase over the previous year.
This lost revenue supposedly amounted to 3.7% of the
industry's $13 billion revenues in 1994. This figure was sharply
higher than the million dollar a day mantra they chanted in 1994.
What gives? Was it $482 million that they claim now or $365
million like they claimed last year? Part of the problem is that
they report these figures on a fiscal basis. June instead of
January. So things get hard to follow. But I hadn't seen anything
this high when I last checked in with them on January 22, 1995.
A 32 percent increase in fraud during 1994 would mean that a loss
of 365 million dollars occurred in the previous fiscal year of
1993. The cellular industry was a 9 billion dollar industry during
that time. I have in my possession, however, a CTIA document from
1993 that contradicts this. A report on fraud dated November 18,
1993 states that "There is no official reporting system, but
private estimates by carriers and others range from $100 million
to $300 million dollars a year." Well, well. What is it this
time? $365 million? $300 million? $100 million? There's a
discrepancy of at least 65 million dollars in fiscal year 1993
according to their own figures.
Leaving aside the fact that CTIA knows how to count profits
but not losses, let me tell you how to get this four page report.
It's called "Fast Facts: Cellular Telephone Fraud". Dial CTlA's
free fax on demand service at (202) 758-0721. Press the pound sign
when you hear the automated operator and then enter 3116 when it
asks you for a document. Don't hit the wrong key -- you'll wind up
in their voice mail system:) And believe it or not, this is still
the document that they deliver to the public by fax to report on
fraud. How concerned can they be when they don't even update
their figures? When they don't get them right In the first place?
And are their new figures any more accurate than what they had
before? Or does that $482 million dollar figure also have a range?
And can we assume that there is now an official reporting system?
And how much of that loss is from dead beats? Or stolen phones?
The CTIA may well have knocked down the percentage of fraud from
4% to 3.7%. It may even be below the industry rate for fraud right
now. But their fraud squad is growing and you won't see them go
away.
They've not only helped the Secret Service rewrite 18 U.S.C. as I
described on page 81, but they are now buying the S.S. the latest
cellular equipment to keep them up to date. I resent this shadow
police force becoming a part of our lives, especially when they
can't provide the information necessary to support their paranoia.
I mentioned that the New York area is moving to PINs. What's
interesting is that NYNEX uses hookflash to deliver the PIN and
not an easily poachable DTMF tone or data burst. I'm not sure how
it gets sent. One hookflash is normally 400 ms. of signaling tone
sent over the reverse voice channel. A four digit pin would need
multiple bursts of carefully spaced ST to accomplish the task.
40% of NYNEX customers have adopted PINs as of April 17. Cellular
One, though, is floating the idea of requiring customers to use
digital phones at the end of the year, to help combat fraud. Good
luck.
Two competing firms are currently working on radio
fingerprinting technology to block fraudulent calls. Corsair
Communications of Sunnyvale is a spin-off of TRW Wireless
Communications. TRW holds a minority interest in the company.
Corsair's product is called "PhonePrint" and it is currently
moving through the patent process so we can't take a look at the
specifics just yet. Nor will TRW comment. The PTO does not release
patent information while an invention is being considered (Just to
let you know, you can get copies of the entire patent file for
$125 from the PTO once a patent gets approved. This includes
material submitted by the applicant for the examiner to consider.
That might be dozens of documents concerning the patent that
interests you.) I did get one TRW employee to tell me, however,
that their technology fingerprints each phone off the air when it
registers. There is no need to bring the phone to a dealer to have
its profile logged. New phones and existing phones get profiled
together. Their system stores an analog signal profile of the
transmissions from a particular phone from any location once it is
first sent. Cloned phones get denied service when their profile
doesn't match the signature assigned to the original phone.
Cellular Technical Services or CTS is a Seattle software
company. They write programs for McCaw Cellular and others. Its
finger printing product is called Blackbird, which they claim has
been in development for three years. Los Angeles Telephone has
already installed the system at 50 cell sites. They claim that
field 90% of cloned phones were blocked during trials. Plans are
to install the equipment in Miami and New York as well. The
wireline carrier will probably use one fingerprinting program and
the non wireline carrier will use the other. Look for these
programs in only high fraud areas -- NYNEX claims they spend $15
million a year on anti-fraud technology -- a lot of fraud must
take place to justify this cost. There are also simple ways to cut
down on cloning. Motorola's "Clone Clear" is a program that works
with Motorola switches. It simply denies service to any phone with
the same ESN/MIN that tries to register while another phone with
that combination is in use. It doesn't determine which phone is
valid -- it just keeps one off the air. The carrier gets notified
of a clone once the legitimate caller complains.
Let me leave you with a funny story. Air Touch says that
over 400 people have been arrested in the Los Angeles area for
cloned phone fraud. Industry sources claim that 60% to 70% of cell
phone traffic on a Friday night in Oakland is pirated. Despite the
notoriety over cloning, it's obvious that the message isn't
getting out about its legality. A recent post to a USENET group by
a telecom employee asked if cloning was legal in California. I
quickly responded by citing case law, regulatory law and statutory
law to support my view that cloning was definitely NOT LEGAL!
To assure him that I wasn't some sort of CTIA goon, I wrote back
later. I said that I didn't have a problem with cloning when a
husband and wife, for example, shared two different phones with
the same ESN/MIN. They save a flat monthly by doing that, but it
is, of course, illegal. Much to my suprise, this employee of a
major firm wrote back that:
"My situation is that I support law enforcement
communications systems and have been asked by a
local police chief if I would like for his
son to clone my phone for me. The PD has
numerous cloned phones in use. We're asking
the DA for a legal opinion, based on your information."
Thanks again. (name of individual and firm withheld)
[1] "The most noticeable disadvantage that is directly associated
with digital systems is the additional bandwidth necessary to
carry the digital signal as opposed to its analog counterpart. A
standard T1 transmission link carrying a DS-1 signal transmits 24
voice channels of about 4kHz each. The digital transmission rate
on the link is 1.544 Mbps, and the bandwidth required is about 772
kHz. Since only 96 kHz would be required to carry 24 analog
channels (4kHz x 24 channels), about eight times as much bandwidth
is required to carry the digitally (722kHz / 96 = 8.04). The extra
bandwidth is effectively traded for the lower signal to noise
ratio." Fike, John L. and George Friend, Understanding Telephone
Electronics SAMS, Carmel 1983
[2] There's a wealth of general information on TDMA available. You
won't have any problem looking it up. Aside from magazines, these
books have snippets of information: Macario, Raymond Cellular
Radio: Principles and Design McGraw Hill, Inc., New York 1993 161;
and Myers, Robert A. ed., Encyclopedia of Telecommunications
Academic Press, Inc. San Diego 1989 321;
[3] Karn refers to On the System Design Aspects of Code Division
Multiple Access (CDMA) Applied to Digital Cellular and Personal
Communications Networks by Allen Salmasi and Klein S. Gilhousen
[WT6G], from the Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Vehicular Technology
Conference, St. Louis MO May 19-22 1991 and the May 1991 IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology, which has several papers on
CDMA. (The Transactions are collections of papers published by the
IEEE on every conceivable piece of electronic technology.)\
[4] The paper I'm referring to is contained in a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking issued by the FCC in early 1994 based upon an
En Banc Hearing on Toll Fraud. It is at Compu$erve under the title
of FRAUD.TXT . It has many interesting comments by industry types
on PBX fraud, payphone fraud, cell fraud, etc. I don't have an
exact date on it but the docket number is CC Docket 93-292. It may
be available from the FCC's duplicating contractor: International
Transcription Service at (202) 857-3800.
[5] Standard and Poors's Industry Surveys come out every week on a
different trade. Their reports of telecommunications are always
top notch. Check out the September 22, 1994 (Vol. 162, No. 38,
Sec 1.) for a good, current analysis of telecom.
NB: Write to Communications Test Instruments (CTI) for some
interesting information on cellular phone tracking and direction
finding equipment. Rt. 1 South, P.O. Box 712, Kennebunk, Maine
04043
VI. AN INTERVIEW WITH DAMIEN THORN
I first met Damien Thorn at Def Con last summer. I was
impressed that he was writing for Nuts and Volts and that he had
written for 2600 and Tap. I thought this interview might be a good
way to introduce him to private line's readers. In the immediate
future, we may reprint some of his more popular articles for Nuts
and Volts, but only after they have been expanded, updated and
revised for private line. They will also have different
photographs and more of them. This interview was done in Stockton
in March. It's shorter than I wanted but we were both under
deadline pressure for other articles and projects. Apologies.
What got you interested in hacking?
This all goes back to when I was 11 to 13 years old. I
really wasn't hacking, I was just trying to learn things. Talking
basically to anyone with the phone company that I could. I grew up
near Berkeley and my interest was in phones before there were any
computers to get involved with. The first switches that I saw were
in Oakland. The office that housed them had an ESS No. 1 and step
by step equipment. I heard MF tones blaring out of a speaker at a
test board during one visit to that office. I asked the guy what
they were. Because I had always heard those when I when I called
my cousin and I always wondered about them. He said he couldn't
talk about that and ushered us into the next room.
I used to go to UC Berkeley and hang out at their computer
lab and at the Lawrence Hall of Science above the university. I'd
play with actual teletypes spitting out rolls of yellow teletype
paper with tape punch readers on the side. There wasn't much
hacking then, I mean, I looked over people's shoulders, shoulder
surfing, snag passwords to other accounts, but to this day I
couldn't even tell you what computer these teletypes were hooked
up to.
By the time I was 15 or 16 I was living in the central
valley. Ronnie Schnell and I had hacked Compuserve and their
competitor The Source. Several hours into the process of
downloading all the accounts and passwords that existed on the
system, including those of the Dialcom computers that ran The
Source, we kept getting these messages to call a "Fritz" at
Dialcom immediately. Well, after talking to Fritz, Dialcom offered
to pay us five bucks an hour to find all their security holes and
tell them so they could patch them up. Which we did for a long
time, while installing some back doors of our own. Maybe six
months into that they thought they had their system pretty secure
and they sent all their subscribers notices telling them to change
their passwords. This was unbeknownst to us. In addition, they
started
encrypting their passwords. They changed everything at midnight
one night and effectively locked us out of the system. The Source
was a computer service operated by Readers' Digest. They didn't
own the computers, which were PRIMES, operated by Dialcom in
Silver Springs, Maryland. Dialcom also did e-mail for the
government and things like that. Governmental agencies and what
not. I think that bothered Dialcom a lot more than The Source.
That's because all their systems were pretty much the same, just
different applications of software running on them. It wasn't just
Source user id's we were pulling out but the Environmental
Protection Agencies' ids, mailboxes and so on.
What about TAP magazine?
The first issue came out in June, 1971. At that point I think
it started as YIPL: Youth International Party Line; Abbie Hoffman
had his hand in there somewhere. I think it was intended more as a
counterculture, screw the government type of thing. Within a few
issues it had evolved into being more telco related. Screw the
telco, here's how it works, here's how you away with something. I
came in later, say, within 20 issues of its demise.
The first article I wrote? I'm not sure, there were a couple
I wrote under several different nom-de-plumes which I'd rather not
mention. If people want to research it they can go take a look and
figure it out. But one was on COSMOS; I get to claim the
distinction of writing the first article on how the COSMOS system
worked. Essentially, COSMOS is a UNIX application that is used
basically for data entry and database management for where the
phone company's wires go. What pair goes with which wire. Things
like that. At that time that stuff was really cutting edge because
it was brand new, there were very few hackers, and not a lot of
phone phreaks. And today I look at things that have been published
in zines like Phrack. that go on for page after page after page
about COSMOS and it makes back then look like what it was -- kids
stuff.
The end of TAP? The spring of 1984. Some circumstances
happened with the editor's house apparently burning down, some
suspicious circumstances. Cheshire Catalyst, the number two person
in charge tried to revive it. A couple more issues came out and
then it faded away. He went off into the corporate world and
became a security consultant.
What about blue boxing?
I had a friend in the Bay Area who designed and built blue
boxes and actually got caught. They were able to put an DNR on his
line. Apparently at the time the way the law was interpreted that
the telco and law enforcement could also record on audio tape the
first thirty seconds of your phone calls simply for the purposes
of identifying who on that number was making the offending calls.
Any stupid phone tricks you can relate from yesteryear?
The usual. Blue boxing from pay phone to payphone by looping.
You could also loop with Sprint. There was no easy access, you
were dialing a seven digit number to access their network. So
you'd access their network locally, key in your Sprint code and
then call their POP in Texas. You'd get the Sprint dial tone, key
in a number back in California or whatever, New York, and start
looping around until eventualy the signal is so degraded that the
switch can't decode the touch tones. Or you'll get so much glare
on the line that the circuit goes into a feedback loop.
How is your BBS, Hacking Online, set up?
Hacking Online is a small network, running on an Intel
platform. A 486 DX266 machine with intelligent serial cards. We
currently support ten lines on that machine. It handles
communications: works the modems, has a port speed lock of 57.6
kbps, handles all the basic stuff. Our file libraries exist on two
SCSI drives which comprise four gigs. There's also two CD ROM
drives online. The other parts of the network handle our internet
messaging, e-mail and our USENET feed which comes in by
satellite. There's a dish on top of the roof which feeds a basic
PC that gets the data coming from the satellite receiver. It's all
processed and shot through the network to where the operating
system (the BBS) can import it. We run Glacticomm's Major BBS
software.
Why a satellite for the USENET feed?
USENET feeds can take up 80 megs a day. Transferring 80 megs
over a dial up phone line with a 14.4 modem would take up about
twenty hours. That would be an expensive connection, especially
since there is no local internet provider. Our internet messaging,
our e-mail, is done through a dial up UUCP, which stands for UNIX
to UNIX Copy Protocol. Essentially, our PC, for the purposes of
sending and receiving mail, emulates a UNIX machine, makes a call
to a Bay Area UNIX machine through an X.25 network so we're not
paying toll on that. The machines engage in the appropriate
handshaking, hands off the packets that contain our outgoing mail
and then receives our incoming mail, the connections terminate at
each end, the software unbundles and uncompresses the mail and
distributes it appropriately.
What's slowing down the internet connection?
Anyone who wants to get on the internet needs to go through a
service provider who has a host, connected through a leased line
or a T1 carrier to the net. Well, "the net" of course is a
euphemism because there is no net where you just plug in. And then
they provide the client software such as FTP, telnet, and gopher
which you use to go places or download files. A lot of areas don't
have that, including where we are here in Stockton. And you know,
we're just fifty miles south of Sacramento. So we want to
establish that service, to become the local internet provider.
People in Stockton, anyone who wanted to call us here in Stockton,
or Modesto or wherever we put our own little POPs, could get a
local internet connection. Once the leased line is in, expanding
just becomes putting a terminal server in another city with a
router and connecting a leased line between it and us here. The
costs are outrageous. There's an initial hardware investment which
is expected and I can't complain about that. Getting the leased
line to another provider who will serve as our connection is where
the expense comes in. California is divided into different LATAs,
which are geographical and political subdivisions which make no
sense. If we want to connect to Peter Shipley's service in the Bay
Area, for example, we have some problems. We may be able to get a
fractional T1 from Pacific Bell for three or four hundred dollars
a month up to the LATA point, then we have to pay a long distance
carrier another couple of hundred bucks to take it across the LATA
and then pay Pacific Bell again to carry it from the long distance
carrier's POP to Shipley's facility. Our subscribers, though,
would benefit from us being accessible from the net. Most of them,
almost all of them, in fact, are not within our local calling
area. We have people calling in every day from as far away as
Venezuela and Scotland, so they would rather call their local
internet provider and telnet over to us.
You're in small claims court with Pacific Bell?
We had some problems with installation. I wanted them to
discount their installation fee for missing their appointment and
generally screwing up the order. They said they couldn't because
their fees are regulated by tariff and they have to charge
everyone the same amount. We then called the state public utility
commission here in California and they basically said the same
thing. They told us that the phone company, though, is civilly
liable for missed appointments like any public utilities under
Senate Bill 101. They said we should just file a small claims
suit. So, we called Pacific Bell's corporate office and told them
what the PUC said. They admitted that was the case and they noted
in the record that they had missed the appointment. So, because
they can't discount my bill, I have to force them into court to
write me a check. It's the principal of the thing. They hide
behind the tariffs, there's nothing they can do. It pretty much
shields them from being responsible for their actions. Well,
I told them that we would sue them and we did. That's where we are
right now.
Where do you think cellular is going?
I don't think we're going to see much change in 1995. The
cloning problem I think will continue as it does now, which is an
acceptable loss to the carrier. There's not going to be much done
about it. I think we'll see some testing
of fraud prevention systems begin this year but things will
basically continue as they are.
What's up with this video of yours?
The intent of the video was to let people actually see the
technology that I've written about and that others have written
about. Lot of people have read articles about Motorola programming
software or how ESNs are snagged out of the air. We try to show
it. Here's a firmware replacement, this is the chip. Here's the
ESN in a Radio Shack phone, here's how you type over it. 'Type,
type type.' We took a lot of technology and demonstrated it.
Almost all of it was done in different places, none of it was done
over a kitchen table. We went everywhere from the Berkeley hills
to just outside the area of our local switch in Stockton. We also
visited Tech Support Systems in Menlo Park, the manufacturer of a
cellular surveillance device in a briefcase. We had them demo it.
Things like that.
-- LOCAL DIAL UP PROBLEMS --
Local internet connections aren't just a problem for
potential providers such as Hacking Online. Many of my readers
live beyond a local dialup for internet service. This interesting
article from Gannet highlights the situation:
If he didn't live in Pinehurst, N.C., Sydney Gregory might
already be on-line. But the retired businessman knows that if he
joins Prodigy, Compuserve or America Online, he'll have to pay
expensive long distance charges. Most of the "local" access
numbers they provide are in larger metro areas, not in small towns
like Pinehurst, a golfing mecca between Charlotte and
Fayetteville. "They all spread the word how wonderful these
programs are, but never mention (phone costs) if you're not in a
larger community," he says. "They should be more forthcoming."
Mark Dorosh of Shepherdstown, W.Va., agrees. The musician and
student, 33, had to quit America Online after racking up a $200
long-distance bill the first month. Shepherdstown has a state
college connected to Internet (as a student, Dorosh has access),
but he covets America Online's extensive library of electronic
music files. "Here I am, 70 miles from the nation's capital,
America Online is 73 miles away, and the closest local number is
300 miles the other way, he says. Whil
e Prodigy and Compuserve
maintain their own local access points, America Online uses phone
connections provided by SprintNet and Tymnet, says spokeswoman Pam
McGraw, so adding new numbers is "a net work provider issue."
Sprint has 500 access points (300 in the USA) and gets many
letters and petitions asking for more. "This has really become an
issue with users," says spokeswoman Evette Fulton. "Sprint has to
prioritize, because demand is coming in big-time." There are "no
magic numbers," she says, but population density, computer sales
and higher education are among factors considered in deciding if
"computer traffic in an area can sustain the cost" of adding new
points.
Prodigy's Brian Ek says 80 per cent of its customers have
local access, through Tymnet sites and its own 442-point network;
Andy Boyer of Compuserve says it reaches 92 percent, and "100 per
cent local dial is a very real goal." Compuserve members reach the
service via 380 access points (340 in the USA). About 120,000 U.S.
users don't have local access many connect either by an $8-an hour
phone line or "telneting in" from another computer on the
Internet.
-- WHAT IS A POP? --
POP stands for point of presence. A POP is a switch. It's
the place where calls go in a local area or LATA to a long
distance provider. It's what's accessed when you dial a 10XXX
code. Let's take an example. Let's say you use Sprint and that
you want to make a long distance call. Your local exchange
carrier, the one providing your local phone service, takes the
call from the central office serving you and routes it to a bigger
switch, often an access tandem switch like a No. 4ESS. From there,
your call is routed on trunks to a POP, which is often located
near a LATA boundary. Your call goes there and gets routed to
Sprint's long distance network. There can be several POPs in any
given LATA, depending on geography. You can tell that areas such
as Cook County or New York city would need several. In Sprint's
case, it is most probable that they own their own equipment at
each Point of Presence and that dedicated trunks carry Sprint
traffic to and from the POP. Is this clear? In other words, a POP
serves as the point that a long distance carrier connects to the
local exchange carrier. This connection occurs at a switch. The
IXC can usually determine the location for its POP.
A 10XXX code identifies each long distance carrier. This
serves to direct the call to the right long distance company
through the switch at the POP. 102888 for AT&T, 10222 for MCI,
10333 for Sprint and so on. Smaller companies may lease space on a
switch if they don't have their own facility. Thus, some LD
carriers may operate in certain areas but not in others. The
majority of smaller long distance carriers actually use AT&T's
network.
VII. THE DIGITAL TELEPHONY BILL
The article contains the full text of the Digital Telephony
Bill. It's officially known as the "Communications Assistance for
Law Enforcement Act." It was originally called "The
Telecommunications Carrier's Duty Act of 1994" while making its
way through Congress. Whatever you call it, this bill represents
the greatest threat to electronic privacy that Americans have ever
faced. Whether that threat will be carried out is a matter of
debate and speculation. What is not open to debate is that law
enforcement has been given the approval, the means and the money
to listen in on any call at any time from anywhere. The phone
system will be turned into a giant listening post, with
capabilities beyond the dreams of any old line communist leader.
Stalin would be envious.
This bill modifies or amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code as well
as Title 47. Title 18 deals with both federal crimes and federal
criminal procedure. Criminal law. Think of it as a federal penal
code. Title 18 comprises 14 volumes in annotated form! That's a
lot of crime. The bill modifies, for example, section 1029, which
I covered in the third issue. Title 47 deals with general law
concerning telegraphs, telephones and radio telegraphs. Civil law.
The bill creates a new chapter in this title as well amending
dozens of existing laws. Check out the chart on the opposite page.
Okay, you say, it's one big bill. Mucho details. What's the bottom
line?
The bottom line is that you and your friends are at risk.
Aren't there positives? Yes and no. Yes, encryption is not banned.
But that is not a benefit of the bill. You've had the right to use
and develop an encryption based phone all along. Some say that
that the bill requires surveillance to be conducted with the
"affirmative action of the telecommunications carrier" and that
this is a good thing. Nonsense. Wiretaps and REMOBS have always
required such intervention to be legal. The problem now is that
the such monitoring equipment will be permanently installed into
nearly every central office switch in America. Big Brother used to
leave. Well. friends, he's now staying put.
The biggest positive is that the system they envision is so complex from a
legal and
technical standpoint, that the whole thing may collapse under its
own weight. We can only hope. Speaking of complexity, the only
way to put this kind of omnibus legislation into perspective is to
look at each individual code section affected. And those sections
are scattered throughout several titles, not just 18 and 47. Teams
of lawyers drafted this monstrosity. Special interest groups
fought for various sentences, paragraphs and semi-colons over a
period of months and countless revisions. It could be argued that
no one outside of the players involved, could understand the
entire bill. The average citizen never had a chance. As complex as
this bill may seem, however, it is really more complicated than it
appears. That's because statutes don't stand on their own. The
United States Code constitutes statutory law. A legislative body
drafts and passes statutes.
Regulatory law is made by administrative bodies. Like the FCC or
the Justice Department. Regulations enable statutes. They make
the law specific. Statutes tell you what the law is. Regulations tell
you how the law will be carried out. Not all codes have a corresponding
regulation but many do. For example, this bill declares that
$500,000,000 gets paid by the government to the telephone companies.
This blood money helps with the cost of installing the equipment that the
bill itself requires. But how do you dispense a half billion
dollars? Section 109 of this bill requires that the Attorney
General and the FCC get together to pass the regulations needed to
carry out the payments. So, this bill is just one part of an even
bigger body of law. In addition, case law or common law modifies
both statutory and regulatory law. I featured Section 1029 in the
last issue. 1029 did not specifically state that cloned cellular
phones were access devices. $1029, after all, was first drafted
before cloning became a problem. The court in US v Brady, though,
strongly suggested that they were. Legislators often incorporate
or codify statutory law by amending code sections once case law
comes down. "Oh. we forgot to put in cloned phones? Okay, let's
change the law and include them. Next problem." It is completely
predictable that new technology and new court decisions will
affect the Digital Telephony Bill.
So, we have statutory law.
regulatory law and case law. Each may affect the other.. In
addition, the law is never administered fairly or evenly in all
cases at all times. How the law is actually carried out is as
important as what is written down. The bill makes listening in on
cord less phones illegal. The penalty, though, is only $500, about
what they fine you for littering in California. So, there won't be
much prosecution going forward over that section. Unless you are a
Mitnick type in which case you will be hounded for it. But if you
are a member of law enforcement and you just happen to have a
scanner, well, you know what the response will be.
+NOTE: MY COMMENTS ARE FRAMED BY PLUS SIGNS+
Diagram of The Digital Telephony Bill .......72
Introduction ................................7 3
Title 1, Interception of Digital And Other
Communications..............................74
Statute and Regulation Diagram ..............77
Title 2, Amendments to Title 18, United States
Code .......................................7 9
18 U.S.C. 1029 (As amended by the Digital
Telephony Bill) ............................81
Title 3, Amendments to the Communications Act
of 1934 ....................................82
TITLE I, INTERCEPTION OF DIGITAL AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
[Creates a new chapter (Chapter 9) within Title 47 of the United
States Code. Title 47 deals with "Telegraphs, Telephones & Radio
Telegraphs." The following section numbers belong to the Digital
Telephony Bill. The section numbers in Chapter 9 actually start at
1001. ]
SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE
This title may be cited as the "Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act".
Section 102. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this title --
(1) The terms defined in section 2510 of title 18, United
States Code, have, respectively, the meanings stated in that
section.
(2) The term "call-identifying information" means dialing or
signaling information that identifies the origin, direction,
destination, or termination of each communication generated or
received by a subscriber by any means of any equipment, facility,
or service of a telecommunications carrier.
(3) The term "Commission" means the Federal Communications
Commission.
(4) The term "electronic messaging services" means software-
based services that enable the sharing of data, images, sound,
writing, or other information among computing devices controlled
by the senders or recipients of the messages.
(5) The term "government" means the government of the United
States and any agency or instrumentality thereof, the District of
Columbia, any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United
States, and any State or political subdivision thereof authorized
by law to conduct electronic surveillance.
(6) The term "information services"--
(A) means the offering of a capability for generating,
acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving,
utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications;
and
(B) includes --
(i) a service that permits a customer to retrieve
stored information for storage in, information storage facilities;
(ii) electronic publishing; and
(iii) electronic message services; but
(C) does not include any capability for a
telecommunications carrier's internal management, control or
operation of its telecommunications network.
(7) The term "telecommunications support services" means a
product, software, or service used by a telecommunications carrier
for the internal signaling or switching functions of its
telecommunications network.
(8) The term "telecommunications carrier"
(A) means a person or entity engaged in the transmission
or switching of wire or electronic communications as a common
carrier for hire; and
(B) includes--
(i) a person or entity engaged in providing
commercial mobile service (as defined in section 332(d) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d) or
(ii) a person or entity engaged in providing wire
or electronic communication switching or transmission service to
the extent that the Commission finds that such service is a
replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone
exchange service and that it is in the public interest to deem
such a person or entity to be a telecommunications carrier for
purposes of this title; but
(C) does not include--
(i) persons or entities insofar as they are engaged
in providing information services; and
(ii) any class of category of telecommunications
carriers that the Commission exempts by rule after consultation
with the Attorney General.
+A telecommunications carrier includes local and long distance
phone companies, as well as cellular and PCS providers. An
information service provider seems to include any online data
base, internet provider or a BBS.+
SECTION 103. ASSISTANCE CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS
(a) Capability Requirements -- Except as provided in
subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section and sections 108(a)
and 109(b) and (d), a telecommunications carrier shall ensure that
its equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or
subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct
communications are capable of--
(1) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government
pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization to
intercept, to the exclusion of any other communications, all wire
and electronic communications carried by the carrier within a
service area to or from equipment, facilities, or services of a
subscriber of such carrier concurrently with their transmission to
or from the subscriber's equipment, facility, or service, or at
such later time as may be acceptable to the government;
(2) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government
pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access
call identifying information that is reasonably available to the
carrier--
(A) before, during or immediately after the
transmission of a wire or electronics communication (or at such
later time as may be acceptable to the Government); and the
communication to which it pertains, except that, with regard to
information acquired solely pursuant to the authority for pen
registers and trap and trace devices (as defined in section 3127
of title 18, United States Code), such call identifying
information shall not include any information that may disclose
the physical location of the subscriber (except to the extent that
the location may be determined from the telephone number);
(3) delivering intercepted communications and call-
identifying information to the government, pursuant to a court
order or other lawful authorization, in a format such that they
may be transmitted by means of equipment, facilities or services
procured by the government to a location other than the premises
of the carrier; and
(4) facilitating authorized communications and access to call
identifying information unobtrusively and with a minimum of
interference with any subscriber's telecommunications service and
in a manner that protects --
(A) The privacy and security of communications and call-
identifying information not authorized to be intercepted; and
(B) information regarding the government's interception
of communications and access to call-identifying information.
(b) LIMITATIONS.--
(1) DESIGN OF FEATURES AND SYSTEMS CONFIGURATIONS.-- This
title not authorize any law enforcement agency or officer --
(A) to require any specific design of equipment,
facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be
adopted by any provider of a wire or electronic communication
service, any manufacturer or telecommunications equipment, or any
provider of telecommunications support services; or (B) to
prohibit the adoption of any equipment, facility, service or
feature by any provider of a wire or electronic communication
service, any manufacturer or telecommunications equipment,
(2) INFORMATION SERVICES; PRIVATE NETWORKS AND INTER-
CONNECTION SERVICES AND FACILITIES. -- The requirements of
subsection (a) do not apply to --
(A) information services; or
(B) equipment, facilities, or services that support the
transport or switching of communications for private networks or
for the sole purpose of interconnecting telecommunications
carriers.
(3) ENCRYPTION.-- A telecommunications carrier shall not be
responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government's ability
to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or
customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and
the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the
communication.
(c) EMERGENCY OR EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. -- (including those
described in sections 2518 (7) or (11)(b) and 3125 of title 18,
United States Code, and section 1805 (e) of title 50 of such
Code), a carrier at its discretion may comply with subsection
(a)(3) by allowing monitoring at its premises if that is the only
means of accomplishing the interception or access.
(d) MOBILE SERVICES ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS.-- A
telecommunications carrier that is a provider of commercial mobile
service (as defined in $332(d) of the Communications Act of 1934)
offering a feature or service that allows subscribers to redirect,
hand off, or assign their wire or electronic communications to
another service area or another service provider or to utilize
facilities in another service area or of another service provider
shall ensure that, when the carrier that had been providing
assistance for the interception of wire or electronic
communications or access to call identifying information within
the service area in which interception has been occurring as a
result of the subscriber's use of such a feature or service,
information is made available to the government (before, during,
or immediately after the transfer of such communications)
identifying the provider of a wire or electronic communication
service that has acquired access to the communications.
+Section 103 is the backbone of the digital telephony bill.
It spells out what the government requires of the carriers and
what it does not. Information services seem exempt for now. That
carves out an exception for devices like the internet phone.
Expect this code section to be amended as voice over the net
becomes more common. Note, too, that this code section does
nothing to guarantee a person's right to use encryption. It just
states that a carrier won't be held responsible for decrypting
traffic that it passes. (As if Sprint could decrypt a PGP encoded
message.)+
SECTION 104. NOTICES OF CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) NOTICES OF MAXIMUM AND ACTUAL CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.-- Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this title, after consulting with State and local law
enforcement agencies, telecommunications carriers, providers of
telecommunications support services, and manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment, and after notice and comment, the
Attorney General shall publish in the Federal Register and provide
to appropriate telecommunications industry associations and
standards-setting organizations--
(A) notice of the actual number of communication
interception, pen register, and trap and trace devices,
representing a portion of the maximum capacity set forth under
subparagraph
(B), that the Attorney General estimates that government
agencies authorized to conduct electronic surveillance may conduct
and use simultaneously by the date that is 4 years after the date
of enactment of this title; and
(B) notice of the maximum capacity required to
accommodate all of the communication interceptions, pen registers,
and trap and trace devices that the Attorney General estimates
that government agencies authorized to conduct electronic
surveillance may conduct and use simultaneously after the date
that is 4 years after the date of enactment of this title.
(2) BASIS OF NOTICES.-- The notices issued under paragraph
(1)--
(A) may be based upon the type of equipment , type of
service, number of subscribers, type or service or carrier, nature
of service area, or any other measure; and
(B) shall identify, to the maximum extent practicable,
the capacity required at specific geographic locations.
(b) COMPLIANCE WITH CAPACITY NOTICES.--
(1) INITIAL CAPACITY.-- Within 3 years after the publication
by the Attorney General of a notice of capacity requirements or
within 4 years after the date of enactment of this title,
whichever is longer, a telecommunications carrier shall,
subsection (e) ensure that its systems are capable of--
(A) accommodating simultaneously the number of
interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices set forth
in the notice under subsection (a)(1)(A); and
(B) expanding to the maximum capacity set forth in the
notice under subsection (a)(1)(B).
(c) NOTICES OF INCREASED MAXIMUM CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS.--
(1) NOTICE.-- The Attorney General shall periodically publish
in the Federal Register, after notice and comment, notice of any
necessary increases in the maximum capacity requirement set forth
in the notice under subsection (a)(1)(b).
(2) COMPLIANCE.-- Within 3 years after notice of increased
maximum capacity requirements is published under paragraph (1), or
within such longer time period as the Attorney General may
specify, a telecommunications carrier shall, subject to subsection
(e), ensure that its systems are capable of expanding to the
increased maximum capacity set forth in this notice.
(d) CARRIER STATEMENT.-- Within 180 days after the publication by
the Attorney General of a notice of capacity requirements
pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), a telecommunications carrier
shall submit to the Attorney General a statement identifying any
of its systems or services that do not have the capacity to
simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, and
trap and trace devices set forth in the notice under such
subsection.
(e) REIMBURSEMENT REQUIRED FOR COMPLIANCE.-- The Attorney General
shall review the statements submitted under subsection (d) and
may, subject to the availability of appropriations, agree to
reimburse a telecommunications carrier for costs directly
associated with modifications to attain such capacity requirement
that are determined to be reasonable in accordance with section
109(e), such modification, such carrier shall be considered to be
in compliance with the capacity notices under subsection (a) or
(c).
Section 104 requires that the government tell the public and
industry just how much hardware and software it wants. The Justice
Department, therefore, will have to argue for their bugging
equipment in public. Perhaps. We may find that a certain amount of
equipment gets installed without much public discussion. I think
the only debate will be between the carriers and the government
over costs and technical matters. The carrier will probably
install as many devices as the government wants, as long as they
are compensated for it and so long as the equipment doesn't
interfere with the telco's operation. The carrier may not want to
put in the equipment but they really don't have a choice.
Section 105 Systems Security and Integrity
A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any
interception of communications or access to call-identifying
information effected within its switching premises can be
activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful
authorization and with the affirmative intervention of an
individual officer or employee of the carrier acting in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the Commission.
+I'm confused by this. I've hear some privacy wonks say that
this is a great provision. They say it prevents the government
from snooping at will. Yet the whole idea of this bill is to
enable remote monitoring at will. Each intercept requires telco
notification and approval. The telco, in fact, is charged with
ensuring that all such intercepts meet regs and specs. So, MCI
tells the FBI to get lost if the feds don't have the right
paperwork? In reality, it is probably as simple as faxing a
warrant to the carrier when needed. A more difficult situation
arises if the telco notices their system being used without
authorization. What then? In addition, many central offices aren't
staffed around the clock. There's too many of them. Pacific Bell
alone has over 800 dial tone producing CO's and remotes. The
telco, therefore, will need to be able to remotely turn on the
monitoring equipment. That will create another gateway into the
system.+
Section 106 Cooperation of Equipment Manufacturers and Providers
of Telecommunications Support Services
(a) Consultation.-- A telecommunications carrier shall consult as
necessary, in a timely fashion with manufacturers or its
telecommunications transmission and switching equipment and its
providers of telecommunications support services for the purposes
of ensuring that current and planned equipment, facilities, and
services comply with the capability requirements of section 103
and the capacity requirements identified by the Attorney General
under section 104.
(b) Cooperation.-- Subject to sections 104(e), 108(a), and 109(b)
and (d), a manufacturer of telecommunications transmission or
switching equipment and a provider of telecommunications support
services shall, on a reasonably timely basis and at a reasonable
charge, make available to the telecommunications carriers using
its equipment, facilities, or services such features or
modifications are necessary to permit such carriers to comply with
the capability requirements of section 103 and the capacity
requirements identified by the Attorney General under section 104.
+Gets the manufacturers on board. Big Brother want this bill bad.+
Section 107. Technical Requirements and Standards; Extension of
Compliance Date
(a) SAFE HARBOR.--
(1) CONSULTATION. To ensure the efficient and industry-wide
implementation of the assistance capability requirements under
section 103 , the Attorney General, in coordination with other
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, shall consult
with appropriate associations and standard-setting organizations
of the telecommunications industry, with representatives of users
of telecommunications equipment, facilities, and services, and
with State utility commissions.
(2) COMPLIANCE UNDER ACCEPTED STANDARDS. -- A
telecommunications carrier shall be found to be in compliance with
the assistance capability requirements under section 103, and a
manufacturer of telecommunications transmission or switching
equipment or a provider of telecommunications support services
shall be found in compliance with section 106, if the carrier,
manufacturer, or support service provider is in compliance with
publicly available technical requirements or standards adopted by
an industry association or standard-setting organization, or by
the Commission under subsection (b), to meet the requirements of
section 103.
(3) ABSENCE OF STANDARDS.-- The absence of technical
requirements or standards for implementing the assistance
capability requirements or standards for implementing the
assistance capability requirements of section 103 shall not--
(A) preclude a telecommunications carrier, manufacturer,
or telecommunications support services provider from deploying a
technology or service; or
(B) relieve a carrier, manufacturer, or
telecommunications support services provider of the obligations
imposed by section 103 or 106, as applicable.
(b) COMMISSION AUTHORITY. -- If industry associations or standard-
setting organizations fail to issue technical requirements or
standards or if a Government agency or any other person believes
that such requirements or standards are deficient, the agency or
person may petition the Commission to establish, by rule,
technical requirements or standards that--
(1) meet the assistance capability requirements of section
103 by cost-effective methods;
(2) protect the privacy and security of communications not
authorized to be intercepted;
(3) minimize the cost of such compliance on residential
ratepayers;
(4) serve the policy of the United States to encourage the
provision of new technologies and services to the public; and
(5) provide a reasonable time and conditions for compliance
with and the transition to any new standard, including defining
the obligations of telecommunications carriers under section 103
during any transition period.
(c) EXTENSION OF COMPLIANCE DATE FOR EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES, AND
SERVICES.--
(1) PETITION.-- A telecommunications carrier proposing to
install or deploy, or having installed or deployed, any equipment,
facility or service prior to the effective date of section 103 may
petition the Commission for 1 or more extensions of the deadline
for complying with the assistance capability requirements under
section 103.
(2) GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION.-- The Commission may, after
consultation with the Attorney General, grant an extension under
subsection, if the Commission determines that compliance with the
assistance capability requirements under section 103 is not
reasonably achievable through application of technology available
within the compliance period.
(3) LENGTH OF EXTENSION.-- An extension under this subsection
shall extend for no longer than the earlier of--
(A) the date determined by the Commission as necessary
for the carrier to comply with the assistance capability
requirements under section 103; or
(B) the date that is 2 years after the date on which the
extension is granted.
(4) APPLICABILITY OF EXTENSION.-- An extension under this
subsection shall apply to only that part of the carrier's business
on which the new equipment, facility, or service is used.
+An industry wide effort is called for to make sure that the
entire public switched telephone network gets wired according to
government specifications. Calls for the telecom industry to set
standards for developing the needed equipment. The FCC gets
charged with setting standards if industry doesn't. The government
needs the latest technology for all this to work. Most of us big
city folks are living under System 7 and CLASS: Custom Local Area
Signaling Service. Specific circuit boards enable caller ID as
well as many advanced services when installed in digital switches
like a 5ESS or DMS 100. It's my guess that the spooks want a board
designed for existing switches that give them the capabilities
they want. Along with the software to control it. The other
possibility is a black box approach. You dedicate and design a PC
to work along with the switch for a specific purpose. In any case,
such equipment may not be too difficult to design since the telco
can already do what the Feds want now. The telco, of course,
wants to make sure that any such equipment works with the least
interference to its switch or its network. Such a device will have
a lot of people involved with its design and sales. No doubt there
will be product literature to read and patents to look up. . .+
SECTION 108 ENFORCEMENT ORDERS
(a) GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE.-- A court shall issue an order
enforcing this title under section 2522 of title 18, United States
Code, only if the court finds that--
(1) alternative technologies or capabilities or the
facilities of another carrier are not reasonably available to law
enforcement for implementing the interception of communications or
access to call-identifying information; and
(2) compliance with the requirements of this title is
reasonably available achievable through the application of
available technology to the equipment, facility or service at
issue or would have been reasonably achievable if timely action
had been taken.
(b) TIME FOR COMPLIANCE.-- Upon issuing an order enforcing this
title, the court shall specify a reasonable time and conditions
for complying with its order, considering the good faith efforts
to comply in a timely manner, any effect on the carrier's,
manufacturer's or service provider's ability to continue to do
business, the degree of culpability or delay in undertaking
efforts to comply, and such other matters as justice may require.
(c) LIMITATIONS.--An order enforcing this title may not --
(1) require a telecommunications carrier to meet the
Government's demand for interception of communications and
acquisition of call-identifying information to any extent in
excess of the capacity for which the Attorney General has agreed
to reimburse such carrier.
(2) require any telecommunications carrier to comply with the
capability assistance requirement of section 103 if the Commission
has determined (pursuant to section 109(b)(1) that compliance is
not reasonably achievable, unless the Attorney General has agreed
(pursuant to section 109(b)(2) to pay the costs described in
section 109(b)(2)(A); or
(3) require a telecommunications carrier to comply with
assistance capability requirement of section 103, any equipment,
facility, or service deployed on or before January 1, 1995, unless
--
(A) the Attorney General has agreed to pay the
telecommunications carrier for all reasonable costs directly
associated with modifications necessary to bring the equipment,
facility, or service into compliance with those requirements; or
(B) the equipment, facility, or service has been
replaced or significantly upgraded or otherwise undergoes major
modification.
No bill is much good unless there's a penalty. Well, here it is.
Get your act together Mr. Telco or the Feds will drag you into
court. There is some leeway for a telco with older switches that
can't be economically retrofitted.
SECTION 109 PAYMENT OF COSTS OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS TO
COMPLY WITH CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS
(a) EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES, AND SERVICES DEPLOYED ON OR BEFORE
JANUARY 1, 1995. -- The Attorney General may, subject to the
availability of appropriations, agree to pay telecommunications
carriers for all reasonable costs directly associated with the
modifications performed by carriers in connection with equipment,
facilities, and services installed or deployed on or before
January 1, 1995, to establish the capabilities necessary to comply
with section 103.
(b) EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES, AND SERVICES DEPLOYED AFTER JANUARY 1,
1995. --
(1) DETERMINATIONS OF REASONABLE ACHIEVABLE. --
The Commission, on petition from a telecommunications carrier or
any other interested person, and after notice to the Attorney
General, shall determine whether compliance with the assistance
capability requirements of section 103 is reasonably achievable
with respect to any equipment, facility, or service installed or
deployed after January 1, 1995. The Commission shall make such
determination within one year after the date such petition is
filed. In making such determination, the Commission shall
determine whether compliance would impose significant difficulty
or expense on the carrier or on the users of the carrier's systems
and shall consider the following factor:
(A) The effect on public safety and national security.
(B) The effect on rates for basic residential telephone
service.
(C) The need to protect the privacy and security of
communications not authorized to be intercepted.
(D) The need to achieve the capability assistance
requirements of section 103 by cost-effective methods.
(E) The effect on the nature and cost of the equipment,
facility, or service at issue.
(F) The effect on the operation of the equipment,
facility, or service at issue.
(G) The policy of the United States to encourage the
provision of new technologies and services to the public.
(H) The financial resources of the telecommunications
carrier.
(I) The effect on competition in the provision of
telecommunications services.
(J) The extent to which the design and development of
the equipment, facility, or service was initiated before January
1, 1995.
(K) Such other factors as the Commission determines are
appropriate.
(2) COMPENSATION.-- If compliance with the assistance
capability requirements of Section 103 is not reasonably
achievable with respect to equipment, facilities, or services
deployed after January 1, 1995
(A) the Attorney General, on application of a
telecommunications carrier, may agree, subject to the availability
of appropriations, to pay the telecommunications carrier for the
additional reasonable costs of making compliance with such
assistance capability requirements reasonably achievable; and
(B) if the Attorney General does not agree to pay such
costs, the telecommunications carrier shall be deemed to be in
compliance with such capability requirements.
(c) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR PAYMENT.Q The Attorney General shall
allocate funds appropriated to carry out this title in accordance
with law enforcement priorities determined by the Attorney
General.
(d) FAILURE TO MAKE PAYMENT WITH RESPECT TO EQUIPMENT FACILITIES,
AND SERVICES DEPLOYED ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1995.QIf a carrier
has requested payment in accordance with procedures promulgated
pursuant to subsection (e), and the Attorney General has not
agreed to pay the telecommunications carrier for all reasonable
costs directly associated with modifications necessary to bring
any equipment, facility, or service deployed on or before January
1, 1995, into compliance with the assistance capability
requirements of section 103, such equipment, facility, or service
shall be considered to be in compliance with the assistance
capability requirements of section 103 until the equipment,
facility, or service or replaced or significantly upgraded or
otherwise undergoes major modification.
(e) COST CONTROL REGULATIONS.Q
(1) IN GENERAL The Attorney General shall, after notice and
comment, establish regulations necessary to effectuate timely and
cost-efficient payment to telecommunications carriers under this
title, under chapters 119 and 121 of title 18, United States Code,
and under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (60
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
(2) CONTENTS OF REGULATIONSQThe Attorney General, after
consultation with the Commission, shall prescribe regulations for
purposes of determining reasonable costs under this title. Such
regulations shall seek to minimize the cost to the Federal
Government and shallQ
(A) permit recovery from the Federal Government of--
(i) the direct costs of developing the modification
described in subsection (a), of providing the capability requested
under subsection (b)(2), or of providing the capacities requested
under section 104(e) , but only to the extent that such costs have
not been recovered from any other governmental or non governmental
entity;
(ii) the costs of training personnel in the use
such capabilities or capacities, and
(iii) the direct costs of deploying or installing
such capabilities or capacities;
(B) in the case of any modification that may be useful
for any purpose other than lawfully authorized electronic
surveillance by a law enforcement agency of a government permit
recovery of only the incremental cost of making the modification
suitable for such law enforcement purposes, and
(C) maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets.
(3) SUBMISSION OF CLAIMS.QSuch regulations shall require any
telecommunications carrier that the Attorney General has agreed to
pay for modifications pursuant to this section that has installed
or deployed such modification to submit to the Attorney General a
claim for payment that contains or is accompanied by such
information as the Attorney General may require.
The government agrees to pay for most of what they want. The
telcos are in a bad way. They may not like the law but they can't
ignore it. Most of these companies, after all, are subject to
federal regulation in some part of their operations. Speaking of
regulations, this section creates plenty. The Digital Telephony
Bill might become a bureaucratic nightmare. Didn't the Newtmeister
want a one year freeze on all new regs? That would panic
everybody. All the information used to develop the regs and
reports should be publicly available but let's wait and see.
SECTION 110 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title a
total of $500,000,000 for fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Such sums are authorized to remain available until expended.
This bill creates a half billion dollar industry.
Consultants, programmers, switch technicians, telco employees and
the feds will all be involved. (As well as the hacker community)
There will probably be newsletters, articles and conventions
relating to compliance. Such fun. Count on the feds' equipment and
procedures to be compromised. A system allowing one to intercept a
specific call, reroute it, and then listen in on the conversation
itself, may prove an irresistible target to many. It's my
understanding that REMOBS is set up on a case by case basis. An
individual wiretap gets set up and taken down as the need arises.
But we are talking here about a permanently installed system with
dedicated ports. The FBI may even get bugged themselves by hackers
or, more probably, other governmental agencies. We'll know more
when the regs come out and we can guess about the equipment. For
all we know, the FBI and Bellcore may be conducting field trials
right now.
SECTION 111. EFFECTIVE DATE
(a) IN GENERAL.QExcept as provided in subsection (b), this title
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) ASSISTANCE CAPABILITY AND SYSTEM SECURITY AND INTEGRITY
REQUIREMENTS.QSections 103 and 105 of this title shall effect on
the date that is 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
SECTION 112 REPORTS
(a) REPORTS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
(1) IN GENERAL.QOn or before November 30, 1995 and on or
before November 30 of each year thereafter, the Attorney General
shall submit to Congress and make available to the public a report
on the amounts paid during the pre-fiscal year to
telecommunications carriers under sections 104(e) and 109.
(2) CONTENTS.QA report under paragraph (1) shall includeQ
(A) a detailed accounting of the amounts paid to each
carrier and the equipment, facility, or service for which the
amounts were paid; and
(B) projections of the amounts expected to be paid in
the current fiscal year, the carrier to which payment is expected
to be made, and the equipment, facilities, or services for which
payment is expected to be made.
(b) REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL.--
(1) PAYMENT FOR MODIFICATIONS.QOn or before April 1, 1996, and
every 2 years thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United
States, after consultation with the Attorney General and the
telecommunications industry, shall submit to the Congress a
reportQ
(A) describing the type of equipment, facilities, and
services that have been brought into compliance under this title,
and
(B) reflecting its analysis of the reasonableness and cost-
effectiveness of the payments made by the Attorney General to
telecommunications carriers for modifications necessary to ensure
compliance with this title.
(2) COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES--
A report under paragraph (1) shall include the findings and
conclusions of the Comptroller General on the costs to be incurred
by telecommunications carriers to comply with the assistance
capability requirements of section 103 after the effective date of
such section 103, including projections of the amounts expected to
be incurred and a description of the equipment, facilities, or
services for which they are expected to be incurred.
TITLE IIQAMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE
SECTION 201. COURT ENFORCEMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT.
(a) COURT ORDER UNDER CHAPTER 119.QChapter 119 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2521 the
following new section:
$2522. Enforcement of the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act
(a) ENFORCEMENT BY COURT ISSUING SURVEILLANCE ORDER.Q a court
authorizing an interception under this chapter, a State statute,
or the Foreign intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (60 USC 1801
et seq.) or authorizing use of a pen register or a tap and trace
device under chapter 206 or a State statute finds that a
telecommunications carrier has failed to comply with the
requirements of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement
Act, the court may, in accordance with section 108 of such act,
direct that the carrier comply forthwith and may direct that the
provider of support services to the carrier or the manufacturer of
the carrier's transmission or switching equipment furnish
forthwith the modifications necessary for the carrier to comply.
(b) ENFORCEMENT BY APPLICATION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.-- may, in a
civil action in the appropriate United States district court,
obtain an order, in accordance with section 108 of the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, directing that
a telecommunications carrier, a manufacturer of telecommunications
transmission or switching equipment, a provider of
telecommunications support services comply with such Act.
(c) CIVIL PENALTY
In General.- A court issuing an order under the section
against a telecommunications carrier, a manufacture of
telecommunications transmission or switching equipment or a
provider of telecommunications support services impose a civil
penalty of up to $10,000 per day for each day in violation after
the issuance of the order or after such future date as the court
may specify.
"(2) CONSIDERATIONS.QIn determining whether to impose a civil
penalty and in determining its amount, the court take into
accountQ
"(A) the nature, circumstances, and extent of the violation;
"(B) the violator's ability to pay, the violator's good faith
efforts to comply in a timely manner, any effect on the violator's
ability to continue to do business, the degree of culpability, and
the length of any delay in undertaking efforts to comply; and
"(C) such other matters as justice may require.
"(d) DEFINITIONS.QAs used in this section, the terms defined in
section 102 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement
Act have the meanings provided, respectively, in section."
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.Q
(1) Section 2518(4) of title 18, United States Code amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence "Pursuant to section
2522 of this chapter, an order may also be issued to enforce the
assistance capability and capacity requirements under the
Communications Assistance for Enforcement Act.".
(2) Section 3124 of such title is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
"(f) COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE ENFORCEMENT ORDERS Pursuant to
section 2622, an order may be issued to enforce the assistance
capability and capacity requirements under the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.".
(3) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter of title
18, United States Code, is amended by inserting the item
pertaining to section 2521 the following new item:
"2622. Enforcement of the Communications For Law Enforcement
Assistance Act."
Another enforcement order? Didn't we just see one in section
108? we did, but that was for Chapter 9 of Title 47. The section
above applies to Title 18 in Chapter 119, popularly known as the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The E.C.P.A. is contained
in 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. It's all about wiretaps and electronic
monitoring. Makes great reading if you have the time. Section
201 deals with courts that are actually ordering a wiretap. They
can impose penalties on carriers who can't arrange an interception
because they haven't yet complied with the Digital Telephony Bill.
Section 108, on the other hand, does not depend on a wiretap. It
is, instead, a general enforcement section. It lets the feds sue a
carrier who hasn't complied with the "Communications Assistance
for Law Enforcement Act" by a certain amount of time.
SECTION 202 CORDLESS TELEPHONES
(a) DEFINITIONSQSection 2510 of title 18, United States Code, is
amendedQ
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking "but such term does not
include" and all that follows through "base unit"; and
(2) in paragraph (12), by striking subparagraph (A) and
redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as subparagraphs
(A), (B), and (C), respectively (b) PENALTYQSection 2511 of title
18, United States is amendedQ
(1) in subsection (4)(b)(i) by inserting a "cordless
communication that is transmitted between the cordless phone
handset and the base unit," after "cellular telephone
communication," and
(2) in subsection (4)(b)(ii) by inserting "a cordless
telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless
telephone handset and the base unit," after "cellular telephone
communication,".
SECTION 203 RADIO-BASED DATA COMMUNICATIONS
Section 2510(16) of title 18, United States Code, is amended Q (1)
by striking "or" at the end of subparagraph (D);
(2) by inserting "or" at the end of subparagraph (E) and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new
subparagraph: "(F) an electronic communication;".
SECTION 204 PENALTIES FOR MONITORING RADIO COMMUNICATIONS THAT
ARE TRANSMITTED USING MODULATION TECHNIQUES WITH NONPUBLIC
PARAMETERS
Section 2511(4)(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking "or encrypted, then" and inserting ", encrypted, or
transmitted using modulation techniques the essential parameters
of which have been withheld from the public with the intention
of preserving the privacy of such communication, then".
SECTION 205 TECHNICAL CORRECTION
Section 2511(2)a)(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking "used in the transmission of a wire communication" and
inserting "used in the transmission of a wire or electronic
communication".
SECTION 206 FRAUDULENT AL-ALTERATION OF COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO
INSTRUMENTS
Please see the text of this section on the opposite page
SECTION 207 TRANSACTIONAL DATA
(a) DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS. Section 2703 of title 18, United States
Code, is amendedQ
(1) in subsection (c)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking clause (i) and
(ii) by redesignating clauses (ii),
(iii), and (iv) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii),
respectively; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
"(C) A provider of electronic communication service or remote
computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the
address, telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other
subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a
subscriber to or customer of such service and the types of
services the subscriber or customer utilized, when the
governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by
a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or
trial subpoena or any means available under subparagraph (B).";
and
(2) by amending the first sentence of subsection (d) to read
as follows: "A court order for disclosure under subsection (b) or
(c) may be issued by any court that is a court of competent
jurisdiction described in section 3126(2)(A) and shall issue if
the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts
showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or
other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing
criminal investigation."
(b) PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES -- Section 3121 of
title 18, United States Code, is amendedQ
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
section:
(C) LIMITATION.QA government agency authorized to install and
use a pen register under this chapter or under State law
shall use technology reasonably available to it that restricts
recording or decoding of electronic or other impulses to the
dialing and signaling information utilized in call processing.".
SECTION. 208. AUTHORIZATION FOR ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL
IN THE CRIMINAL DIVISION TO AP-PROVE CERTAIN COURT APPLICATIONS
Section 2616(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting "or acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General" after
"Deputy Assistant Attorney General".
TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
SECTION 301. COMPLIANCE COST RECOVERY.
Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting
after section 228 (47 U.S.C. 228) the following new section: "SEC.
229. COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT COMPLIANCE.
"(a) In General: The Commission shall prescribe such
rules as are necessary to implement the requirements of the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.
"(b) Systems Security and Integrity: The rules
prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) shall include rules to
implement section 105 of the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act that require common carriers--
"(1) to establish appropriate policies and
procedures for the supervision and control of its officers and
employees--
"(A) to require appropriate authorization to
activate interception of communications or access to call-
identifying information; and
"(B) to prevent any such interception or
access without such authorization;
"(2) to maintain secure and accurate records of
any interception or access with or without such authorization; and
"(3) to submit to the Commission the policies and
procedures adopted to comply with the requirements established
under paragraphs (1) and
(2). "(c) Commission Review of Compliance: The Commission
shall review the policies and procedures submitted under
subsection (b)(3) and
shall order a common carrier to modify any such policy or
procedure that the Commission determines does not comply with
Commission regulations. The Commission shall conduct such
investigations as may be necessary to insure compliance by common
carriers with the requirements of the regulations prescribed
under this section.
"(d) Penalties: For purposes of this Act, a violation
by an officer or employee of any policy or procedure adopted by a
common carrier pursuant to subsection (b), or of a rule prescribed
by the Commission pursuant to subsection (a), shall be considered
to be a violation by the carrier of a rule prescribed by the
Commission pursuant to this Act.
"(e) Cost Recovery for Communications Assistance for
Law Enforcement Act Compliance:
"(1) Petitions authorized: A common carrier may
petition the Commission to adjust charges, practices,
classifications, and regulations to recover costs expended for
making modifications to equipment, facilities, or services
pursuant to the requirements of section 103 of the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.
"(2) Commission authority: The Commission may
grant, with or without modification, a petition under paragraph
(1) if the Commission determines that such costs are reasonable
and that permitting recovery is consistent with the public
interest. The Commission may, consistent with maintaining just and
reasonable charges, practices, classifications, and regulations in
connection with the provision of interstate or foreign
communication by wire or radio by a common carrier, allow carriers
to adjust such charges, practices, classifications, and
regulations in order to carry out the purposes of this Act.
"(3) Joint board: The Commission shall convene a
Federal-State joint board to recommend appropriate changes to part
36 of the Commission's rules with respect to recovery of costs
pursuant to charges, practices, classifications, and regulations
under the jurisdiction of the Commission.
SECTION 302 RECOVERY OF COST OF COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS.
The schedule of application fees in section 8(g) of
the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 158(g)) is amended by
inserting under item 1 of the matter pertaining to common carrier
services the following additional sub-item: "d. Proceeding under
section 109(b) of the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act."
SECTION 303. CLERICAL AND
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Amendments to the Communications Act of 1934: The
Communications Act of 1934 is amended--
(1) in section 4(f)(3), by striking "overtime exceeds
beyond" and inserting "overtime extends beyond";
(2) in section 5, by redesignating subsection (f)
as subsection (e);
(3) in section 8(d)(2), by striking "payment of a"
and inserting "payment of an";
(4) in the schedule contained in section 8(g), in
item 7.f. under the heading "equipment approval
services/experimental radio" by striking "Additional Charge" and
inserting "Additional Application Fee";
(5) in section 9(f)(1), by inserting before the
second sentence the following: "(2) Installment payments:" ;
(6) in the schedule contained in section 9(g), in
the item pertaining to interactive video data services under the
private radio bureau, insert "95" after "47 C.F.R. Part";
(7) in section 220(a)--
(A) by inserting "(1)" after "(a)"; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph: "(2) The Commission shall, by rule, prescribe a uniform
system of for use by telephone companies. Such uniform system
shall require that each common carrier shall maintain a system of
accounting methods, procedures, and techniques (including accounts
and supporting records and memoranda) which shall ensure a proper
allocation of all costs to and among telecommunications services,
facilities, and products (and to and among classes of such
services, facilities, and products) which are developed,
manufactured, or offered by such common carrier.";
(8) in section 220(b), by striking "classes" and
inserting "classes";
(9) in section 223(b)(3), by striking "defendant
restrict access" and inserting "defendant restricted access";
(10) in section 226(d), by striking paragraph (2)
and redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (2) and
(3), respectively;
(11) in section 227(b)(2)(C), by striking
"paragraphs" and inserting "paragraph";
(12) in section 227(e)(2), by striking "national
database" and inserting "national database";
(13) in section 228(c), by redesignating the second
paragraph (2) and paragraphs (3) through (6) as paragraphs (3)
through (7), respectively;
(14) in section 228(c)(6)(D), by striking
"conservation" and inserting "conversation";
(15) in section 308(c), by striking "May 24, 1921"
and inserting "May 27, 1921";
(16) in section 309(c)(2)(F), by striking "section
325(b)" and inserting "section 325(c)";
(17) in section 309(i)(4)(A), by striking
"Communications Technical Amendments Act of 1982" and inserting
"Communications Amendments Act of 1982";
(18) in section 331, by amending the heading of
such section to read as follows: "VERY HIGH FREQUENCY STATIONS AND
AM RADIO STATIONS";
(19) in section 358, by striking "(a)";
(20) in part III of title III--
(A) by inserting before section 381 the
following heading: "VESSELS TRANSPORTING MORE THAN SIX PASSENGERS
FOR HIRE REQUIRED TO
BE EQUIPPED WITH RADIO TELEPHONE";
(B) by inserting before section 382 the
following heading: "VESSELS EXCEPTED FROM RADIO TELEPHONE
REQUIREMENT";
(C) by inserting before section 383 the
following heading: "EXEMPTIONS BY COMMISSION";
(D) by inserting before section 384 the
following heading: "AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION; OPERATIONS,
INSTALLATIONS, AND ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT";
(E) by inserting before section 385 the
following heading: "INSPECTIONS"; AND
(F) by inserting before section 386 the following
heading: "FORFEITURES";
(21) in section 410(c), by striking ", as referred
to in sections 202(b) and 205(f) of the Interstate Commerce Act,";
(22) in section 613(b)(2), by inserting a comma
after "pole" and after "line";
(23) in section 624(d)(2)(A), by inserting "of"
after "viewing";
(24) in section 634(h)(1), by striking "section
602(6)(A)" and inserting "section 602(7)(A)";
(25) in section 705(d)(6), by striking "subsection
(d)" and inserting "subsection (e)";
(26) in section 705(e)(3)(A), by striking
"paragraph (4) of subsection (d)" and inserting "paragraph (4) of
this subsection";
(27) in section 705, by redesignating subsections
(f) and (g) (as added by Public Law 100-667) as subsections (g)
and (h); and
(28) in section 705(h) (as so redesignated), by
striking "subsection (f)" and inserting "subsection (g)".
(b) Amendments to the Communications Satellite Act of 1962: The
Communications Satellite Act of 1962 is amended--
(1) in section 303(a)-- (A) by striking "section 27(d)"
and inserting "section 327(d)";
(B) by striking "sec. 29-911(d)" and inserting
"sec. 29-327(d)";
(C) by striking "section 36" and inserting
"section 336"; and
(D) by striking "sec. 29-916d" and inserting
"section 29-336(d)";
(2) in section 304(d), by striking "paragraphs
(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 310(a)" and inserting
"subsection (a) and paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (b)
of section 310"; and
(3) in section 304(e)--
(A) by striking "section 45(b)" and inserting
"section 345(b)"; and
(B) by striking "sec. 29-920(b)" and inserting
"sec. 29-345(b)"; and
(4) in sections 502(b) and 503(a)(1), by striking
"the Communications Satellite Corporation" and inserting "the
communications satellite corporation established pursuant to title
III of this Act".
(c) Amendment to the Children's Television Act of 1990: Section
103(a) of the Children's Television Act of 1990 (47 U.S.C.
303b(a)) is amended by striking "non-commercial" and inserting
"noncommercial".
(d) Amendments to the Telecommunications Authorization Act of
1992: Section 205(1) of the Telecommunications Authorization Act
of 1992 is amended--
(1) by inserting an open parenthesis before "other
than"; and
(2) by inserting a comma after "stations)".
(e) Conforming Amendment: Section 1253 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981 is repealed.
(f) Stylistic Consistency: The Communications Act of 1934 and the
Communications Satellite Act of 1962 are amended so that the
section designation and section heading of each section of such
Acts shall be in the form and typeface of the section designation
and heading of this section.
SECTION 304. ELIMINATION OF EXPIRED AND OUTDATED PROVISIONS
(a) Amendments to the Communications Act of 1934: The
Communications Act of 1934 is amended--
(1) in section 7(b), by striking "or twelve months
after the date of the enactment of this section, if later" both
places it;
(2) in section 212, by striking "After sixty days
from the enactment of this Act it shall" and inserting "It
shall";
(3) in section 213, by striking subsection (g) and
redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g);
(4) in section 214, by striking "section 221 or
222" and inserting "section 221";
(5) in section 220(b), by striking ", as soon as
practicable,";
(6) by striking section 222;
(7) in section 224(b)(2), by striking "Within 180
days from the date of enactment of this section the Commission"
and inserting "The Commission";
(8) in 226(e), by striking "within 9 months after
the date of enactment of this section,";
(9) in section 309(i)(4)(A), by striking "The
commission, not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of the Communications Technical Amendments Act of 1982,
shall," and inserting "The Commission shall,";
(10) by striking section 328;
(11) in section 413, by striking ", within sixty
days after the taking effect of this Act,";
(12) in section 624(d)(2)(B)--
(A) by striking out "(A)";
(B) by inserting "of" after "restrict the
viewing"; and
(C) by striking subparagraph (B);
(13) by striking sections 702 and 703;
(14) in section 704--
(A) by striking subsections (b) and (d); and
(B) by redesignating subsection (c) as
subsection (b);
(15) in section 705(g) (as redesignated by section
304(25)), by striking "within 6 months after the date of enactment
of the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, the Federal
Communications
Commission" and inserting "The Commission";
(16) in section 710(f)--
(A) by striking the first and second
sentences; and
(B) in the third sentence, by striking
"Thereafter, the
Commission" and inserting "The Commission";
(17) in section 712(a), by striking ", within 120
days after the effective date of the Satellite Home Viewer Act of
1988,"; and
(18) by striking section 713.
(b) Amendments to the Communications Satellite Act of
1962: The Communications Satellite Act of 1962 is amended--
(1) in section 201(a)(1), by striking "as
expeditiously as possible,";
(2) by striking sections 301 and 302 and inserting
the following:
"SEC. 301. CREATION OF CORPORATION.
"There is authorized to be created a communications
satellite corporation for profit which will not be an agency or
establishment of the United States Government.
"SEC. 302. APPLICABLE LAWS.
"The corporation shall be subject to the provisions of
this Act and, to the extent consistent with this Act, to the
District of Columbia Business Corporation Act. The right to
repeal, alter, or amend this Act at any time is expressly
reserved.";
(3) in section 304(a), by striking "at a price not
in excess
of $100 for each share and";
(4) in section 404--
(A) by striking subsections (a) and (c); and
(B) by redesignating subsection (b) as section
404;
(5) in section 503--
(A) by striking paragraph (2) of subsection
(a); and
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) of
subsection (a) as paragraph (2) of such subsection;
(C) by striking subsection (b);
(D) in subsection (g)--
(i) by striking "subsection (c)(3)" and
inserting
"subsection (b)(3)"; and
(ii) by striking the last sentence; and
(E) by redesignating subsections (c) through
(h) as
subsections (b) through (g), respectively;
(5) by striking sections 505, 506, and 507; and
(6) by redesignating section 508 as section 505.
VIII THE COMPLETE TEXT OF 18 USC 1029
18 U.S.C. 1029 (As Amended By The Digital Telephony Bill)
$ 1029. Fraud and related activity in connection with access
devices
(a) Whoever --
(1) knowingly and with intent to defraud produces, uses,
or traffics in one or more counterfeit access devices;
(2) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics in or
uses one or more unauthorized access devices during any one-year
period, and by such conduct obtains anything of value aggregating
$1,000 or more during that period;
(3) knowingly and with intent to defraud possesses
fifteen or more devices which are counterfeit or unauthorized
access devices;
(4) knowingly, and with intent to defraud, produces,
traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses device making
equipment; or
(5) knowingly and with intent to defraud uses, produces,
traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses a
telecommunications instruments that has been modified or altered
to obtain unauthorized use of telecommunications services; or
(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud uses, produces,
traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses--
(A) a scanning receiver; or
(B) hardware or software used for altering or
modifying telecommunications instruments services.
(b)(1) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection
(a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection
(c) of this section.
(2) Whoever is a party to a conspiracy of two or more
persons to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section,
if any of the parties engage in any conduct in furtherance of such
offense, shall be fined an amount not greater than the amount
provided as the maximum fine for such offense under subsection (c)
of this section or imprisoned not longer than one--half of the
period provided as the maximum imprisonment for such offense under
subsection (c) of this section, or both.
(c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or
(b)(1) of this section is --
(1) a fine of not more than the greater of $10,000 or
twice the value obtained by the offense or imprisonment for not
more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under
subsection (a)(2) or (a)3 of this section which does not occur
after a conviction for another offense under either subsection, or
an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this paragraph;
(2) a fine of not more than the greater of $50,000 or
twice the value obtained by the offense or imprisonment for not
more than fifteen years, or both, in the case of a subsection
(a)(1), (4),(5),(6) of this section which does not occur after a
conviction for another offense under either such subsection, or an
attempt to commit an offense punishable under this paragraph; and
(3) a fine of not more than the greater of $100,000 or twice the
value obtained by the offense or imprisonment for not more than
twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection
(a) which occurs after a conviction for another offense under
this subsection, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable
under this paragraph.
(d) The United States Secret Service shall, in addition to
any other agency having such authority, have the authority to
investigate offense under this section. Such authority of the
United States Secret Service shall be exercised in accordance with
an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Attorney General.
(e) As used in this section - -
(1) the term "access device" means any card, plate, code,
account number, electronic serial number, mobile identification
number, personal identification number, or other
telecommunications service, equipment, or instrument identifier,
or other means of account access that can be used, alone or in
conjunction with another access device to obtain money, goods,
services, or any other thing of value, or that can be used to
initiate a transfer of funds (other than a transfer originated
solely by paper instrument);
(2) the term "counterfeit access device" means any access
device that is counterfeit, fictitious, altered, or forged, or an
identifiable component of an access device or a counterfeit access
device:
(3) the term "unauthorized access device" means any access
device that is lost, stolen, expired, revoked, canceled, or
obtained with intent to defraud;
(4) the term "produce" includes design, alter, authenticate,
duplicate or assemble;
(5) the term "traffic" means transfer, or otherwise dispose
of, to another, or impression designed or primarily used for
making an access device or a counterfeit access device and
(6) the term "device-making equipment" means any equipment,
mechanism, or impression designed or primarily used for making an
access device or a counterfeit access device. ;
(7) the term "scanning receiver" means a device or apparatus
that can be used to intercept a wire or electronic communication
in violation of chapter 119.
(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized
investigative, protective or intelligence activity of a law
enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political
subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the
United States, or any activity authorized under chapter 224 of
this title. For purposes of this subsection, the term "State"
includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia,
and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United
States.
"We lobbied for passage of the Telephony bill, which the
president just signed. The bill enhances the language in Title 18,
Section 1029. That's the Secret Service statute that deals with
fraudulent or counterfeit access devices. Prior to this bill being
signed, there was no reference to wireless communications. Now the
language in the statute clearly includes the cellular phones. This
has added that tool to the arsenal of the Secret Service."
Tom McLure, director of fraud
management for the CTIA
It's All About Context!
The full text of 18 U.S.C. as amended by the digital telephony
bill is show on this page. Additions are in bold and deletions are
in cross outs. This shows the value of putting all those scattered
paragraphs into context. The teams of lawyers who drafted this
bill had to have looked up every section and reg affected. . .
IX. SPECIAL E-ZINE BONUS: THE REGULATION PROHIBITING CLONING AS WELL
AS SUPPORTING MATERIAL AS SUPPLIED BY ROBERT KELLER TO CompuServe
Set forth below are excerpts from FCC rules and policy
statements regarding cloning and/or modification of the
electronic serial number (ESN) in cellular phones.
=================
TABLE OF CONTENTS
=================
A. Federal Communications Commission Report and Order
(CC Docket Nos. 92-115, 94-46, and 93-116)
Adopted: August 2, 1994 Released: September 9, 1994
Rule Changes Effective: January 1, 1995
1. Excerpt, Paragraphs 54-63
2. Excerpt, Appendix A
Detailed Discussion of Part 22 Rule Amendments
Section 22.919 Electronic serial numbers.
3. Excerpt, Appendix B - Final Rules
New FCC Rule Section 22.919
47 C.F.R. Section 22.919
B. FCC's Stated Position on Rules and Policy
Prior to Rule Changes in CC Docket No. 92-115
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me:
Bob Keller (KY3R)
==============================
Robert J. Keller, P.C.
------------------------------
Federal Telecommunications Law
4200 Wisconsin Ave NW #106-261
Washington, DC 20016-2143 USA
------------------------------
Internet: rjk@telcomlaw.com
Telephone: +1 301.229.5208
Facsimile: +1 301.229.6875
CompuServe UID: 76100.3333
==============================
===========================================================
A. Federal Communications Commission
Report and Order (CC Docket Nos. 92-115, 94-46, and 93-116)
Adopted: August 2, 1994 Released: September 9, 1994
Rule Changes Effective: January 1, 1995
===========================================================
--------------------------
1. Excerpt, Paragraphs 54-63:
--------------------------
Cellular Electronic Serial Numbers
54. Proposal. We proposed in the Notice a new rule
(Section 22.919) intended to help reduce the fraudulent use of
cellular equipment caused by tampering with the unique
Electronic Serial Numbers (ESN) that identify mobile equipment
to cellular systems. The purposes of the ESN in a cellular
telephone are similar to the Vehicle Identification Numbers in
automobiles. That is, it uniquely identifies the equipment in
order to assist in recovery if it is stolen. More importantly,
in the case of cellular telephones, the ESN enables the
carriers to bill properly for calls made from the telephone.
Any alteration of the ESN renders it useless for this purpose.
The proposed rule explicitly establishes anti-fraud design
specifications that require, among other things, that the ESN
must be programmed into the equipment at the factory and must
not be alterable, removable, or in any way able to be
manipulated in the field. In addition, the proposed rules
require that the ESN component be permanently attached to a
main circuit board of the mobile transmitter and that the
integrity of the unit's operating software not be alterable.
55. Comments. The commenters generally support our
proposal,[94] but they suggest some modifications. For example,
BellSouth, Southwestern Bell, GTE, and CIA suggest that our
proposal should be modified to provide that equipment already
manufactured, is exempt from the rule.[95] They argue that
subjecting existing phones to this rule would be very expensive
and difficult, if not impossible, to implement. Therefore, they
recommend that the rule apply only to phones manufactured after
a particular date.[96] NYNEX recommends that we not require
the ESN chip to be secured to the main circuit board of the
mobile transmitter as proposed. Rather, NYNEX suggests that the
ESN chip be attached to the frame of the radio and attached to
the logic board by cable.[97] In addition, it recommends that
operating software be encoded or scattered over different
memory chips.[98] Motorola, Inc. (Motorola) and Ericsson Corp.
(Ericsson), two manufacturers of cellular mobile equipment,
suggest that the proposal be modified to allow authorized
service centers or representatives to make necessary and
required changes to ESNs in mobile and portable units in the
field.[99]
56. Southwestern Bell recommends that the rule also apply
to mobile equipment associated with a wireless private branch
exchange (PBX).[100] CTIA suggests that the proposal be
modified in several respects. First, it states that we should
clarify that requiring a mobile transmitter to have a "unique"
ESN, means that any particular ESN will not exist in more than
one mobile unit. Second, CTIA suggests that ESN manipulation
not be permitted "outside a manufacturer's authorized
facility." Third, it requests that cellular mobile units be
required to be designed to comply with the "applicable industry
standard for authentication."[101] New Vector supports the
proposed rule, but emphasizes that the ESN criteria should be
incorporated into the type-acceptance rules to clarify that
manufacturers will be subject to the Commission's enforcement
procedures if they do not comply with the ESN requirements.[102]
57. C2+ Technology (C2+) requests that we allow companies
to market ancillary cellular equipment that emulates ESNs for
the purpose of allowing more than one cellular phone to have
the same telephone number. It argues that emulating ESNs in the
way it describes benefits the public, does not involve fraud,
and retains the security and integrity of the cellular
phones.[103] In opposition, Ericsson asserts that the rules
should include procedures to ensure that ESNs are not easily
transferable through the use of an encrypted data transfer
device.[104] Similarly, New Par suggests that the proposed
rule proscribe activity that does not physically alter the chip
yet affects the radiated ESN by translating the ESN signal that
the mobile unit transmits.[105]
58. Discussion. The record before us demonstrates the need
for measures that will help reduce the fraudulent use of
cellular equipment caused by tampering with the ESN. We
therefore adopt the proposed rule for the reasons set forth
below.
59. Contrary to the suggestion of one commenter, the ESN
rule will not prevent a consumer from having two cellular
telephones with the same telephone number. Changing the ESN
emitted by a cellular telephone to be the same as that emitted
by another cellular telephone does not create an "extension"
cellular telephone. Rather, it merely makes it impossible for
the cellular system to distinguish between the two telephones.
We note that Commission rules do not prohibit assignment of the
same telephone number to two or more cellular telephones.[106]
It is technically possible to have the same telephone number
for two or more cellular telephones, each having a unique
ESN.[107] If a cellular carrier wishes to provide this
service, it may. In this connection, we will not require that
use of cellular telephones comply with an industry
authentication procedure as requested by CTIA, as this could
have the unintended effect of precluding multiple cellular
telephones (each with a unique ESN) from having the same
telephone number.
60. Further, we conclude that the practice of altering
cellular phones to "emulate" ESNs without receiving the
permission of the relevant cellular licensee should not be
allowed because (1) simultaneous use of cellular telephones
fraudulently emitting the same ESN without the licensee's
permission could cause problems in some cellular systems such
as erroneous tracking or billing; (2) fraudulent use of such
phones without the licensee's permission could deprive cellular
carriers of monthly per telephone revenues to which they are
entitled; and (3) such altered phones not authorized by the
carrier, would therefore not fall within the licensee's blanket
license, and thus would be unlicensed transmitters in violation
of Section 301 of the Act. Therefore, we agree with New Par and
Ericsson that the ESN rule should proscribe activity that does
not physically alter the ESN, but affects the radiated ESN,
including activities that transfer ESNs through the use of an
encrypted data transfer device.
61. With respect to the proposal to allow alteration of
ESNs by manufacturers' authorized service centers or
representatives, we note that computer 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. Accordingly, we
decline to make the exception requested by Motorola and
Ericsson.
62. We further agree with the commenters that it would be
impractical to apply the new rule to existing equipment.
Accordingly, we are not requiring that cellular equipment that
is currently in use or has received a grant of type-acceptance
be modified or retrofitted to comply with the requirements of
this rule. Thus, the ESN rule will apply only to cellular
equipment for which initial type-acceptance is sought after the
date that our rules become effective. Nevertheless, with regard
to existing equipment, we conclude that cellular telephones
with altered ESNs do not comply with the cellular system
compatibility specification[108] and thus may not be considered
authorized equipment under the original type acceptance.
Accordingly, a consumer's knowing use of such altered equipment
would violate our rules. We further believe that any individual
or company that knowingly alters cellular telephones to cause
them to transmit an ESN other than the one originally installed
by the manufacturer is aiding in the violation of our rules.
Thus, we advise all cellular licensees and subscribers that the
use of the C2+ altered cellular telephones constitutes a
violation of the Act and our rules.
63. With respect to NYNEX's proposed modifications for
securing the ESN chip to the mobile transmitter, the record
does not convince us that these modifications will make the ESN
rule more effective. Therefore, we do not adopt NYNEX's
proposal. We agree with Southwestern Bell that the ESN rule
should apply to mobile equipment associated with wireless PBX
if the equipment can also be used on cellular systems. We also
clarify that the new ESN rule prohibits the installation of an
ESN in more than one mobile transmitter. Finally, as suggested
by New Vector, we amend the type-acceptance rule to refer to
the newly adopted ESN rule.[109]
[Footnotes]
[94] See PacTel Comments at 2; CTIA Comments at 7-8.
[95] BellSouth Comments at Appendix 2, p.36; Southwestern
Bell Comments at 28-29; GTE Comments at 30; CTIA Comments at 8.
[96] For example, BellSouth suggests that the anti-fraud
measures should not apply to equipment type-accepted before
January 1, 1993.
[97] NYNEX Comments at 8.
[98] Id. at 8-9.
[99] Ericsson Reply Comments at 2-5; Motorola Reply
Comments at 3.
[100] Southwestern Bell Comments at 29.
[101] CTIA Comments at 8.
[102] New Vector Comments at Appendix I, p.44.
[103] C2+ Comments at 1-2.
[104] Ericsson Reply Comments at 3-4.
[105] New Par Comments at 21-22.
[106] The telephone number is referred to in the cellular
compatibility specification as the Mobile Identification Number
or "MIN"
[107] It is not technically necessary to have the same
ESN in order to have the same telephone number. Nevertheless,
the authentication software used by some cellular systems does
not permit two cellular telephones with the same telephone
number. In such cases, cellular carriers should explain to
consumers who request this service that their system is not yet
capable of providing it.
[108] See old Section 22.915, which becomes new Section
22.933 in Appendices A and B.
[109] See discussion of new Section 22.377 in Appendix A.
----------------------------------------------
2. Excerpt, Appendix A
Detailed Discussion of Part 22 Rule Amendments
Section 22.919 Electronic serial numbers.
----------------------------------------------
Section 22.919 Electronic serial numbers.
The purpose of this new section is to deter cellular fraud
by requiring that the Electronic Serial Number (ESN) unique to
each cellular phone be factory set, inalterable,
non-transferable, and otherwise tamper-proof and free of
fraudulent manipulation in the field. This subject received
substantial attention from commenters and is discussed in the
Report and Order.
---------------------------------
3. Excerpt, Appendix B - Final Rules
New FCC Rule Section 22.919
47 C.F.R. Section 22.919
---------------------------------
22.919 Electronic serial numbers.
The Electronic Serial Number (ESN) is a 32 bit binary
number that uniquely identifies a cellular mobile
transmitter to any cellular system.
(a) Each mobile transmitter in service must have a
unique ESN.
(b) The ESN host component must be permanently attached
to a main circuit board of the mobile transmitter
and the integrity of the unit's operating software
must not be alterable. The ESN must be isolated
from fraudulent contact and tampering. If the ESN
host component does not contain other information,
that component must not be removable, and its
electrical connections must not be accessible. If
the ESN host component contains other information,
the ESN must be encoded using one or more of the
following techniques:
(1) Multiplication or division by a polynomial;
(2) Cyclic coding;
(3) The spreading of ESN bits over various non-
sequential memory locations.
(c) Cellular mobile equipment must be designed such
that any attempt to remove, tamper with, or change
the ESN chip, its logic system, or firmware
originally programmed by the manufacturer will
render the mobile transmitter inoperative.
(d) The ESN must be factory set and must not be
alterable, transferable, removable or otherwise
able to be manipulated in the field. Cellular
equipment must be designed such that any attempt to
remove, tamper with, or change the ESN chip, its
logic system, or firmware originally programmed by
the manufacturer will render the mobile transmitter
inoperative.
=============================================
B. FCC's Stated Position on Rules and Policy
Prior to Rule Changes in CC Docket No. 92-115
=============================================
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.
| Robert J. Keller, P.C. Internet: rjk@telcomlaw.com |
| Federal Telecommunications Law Telephone: +1 301.229.5208 |
| 4200 Wisconsin Ave NW #106-261 Facsimile: +1 301.229.6875 |
| Washington, DC 20016-2143 USA CompuServe UID: 76100.3333 |
