Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA20041; Thu, 2 May 1996 14:02:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 14:02:17 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605021802.OAA20041@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #210 TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 May 96 14:02:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 210 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson California Area Codes to Double (Tad Cook) Bell Canada and Bank of Montreal Offer Bell MasterCard (Nigel Allen) Teleplaza Telecommunication Resources Directory (rreader@laker.net) Area Code Database By City or Zip (tbond@primenet.com) Phone Service Along the Kissimmee River (Ed Kleinhample Re: Required PIN Dialing Over Cellular Phone (Steve Bagdon) Re: Slamming Dunked (Steve Arlow) Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified (Babu Mengelepouti) Old Contel PC F.E.P. For Switch? (Michael Newton) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: California Area Codes to Double Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 15:28:29 PDT East Bay Is California's Top Market for Telephone Use By George Avalos, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 1--Fueled by the launch of local telephone competition and a boom in wireless communications, the East Bay has become California's most incandescent market for new telephone numbers. Startling telecommunications growth in the 510 area code of Contra Costa and Alameda counties is the primary factor prompting Pacific Bell officials to announce Tuesday that the 510 territory will require a new area code by mid-1998. Pac Bell began warning last fall that the East Bay and several other California regions are rapidly running out of phone numbers. "The 510 was the top number user in 1995," said California area code administrator Bruce Bennett of Pacific Bell. The second-fastest growing region was the 916 area code covering Sacramento. In 1995, 76 prefixes were added to the 510 area code, more than double the year before. During the first four months of this year, about 55 prefixes have been assigned, according to Bennett. That puts the East Bay on a pace to top 100 new prefixes for the year. "A lot of the growth last year was due to cellular and paging services," Bennett said. Wireless devices accounted for 56 percent of the phone numbers assigned in 1995. This year, add phone competition to the reasons the East Bay pool of phone numbers has almost been drained. "About two-thirds of the new numbers that have been added in 1996 are for numbers that will be used by local telephone competitors," Bennett said. California now has 13 area codes, more than any other state. Over the next five years, that number is expected to double to 26. The 415, 916 and 714 regions will require new area codes by the end of 1997. Besides 510, new codes will likely be needed in the 209 San Joaquin Valley region and the 408 South Bay region by mid-1998. A series of public meetings are scheduled starting this month to discuss the changes. Industry and state officials haven't decided whether to split existing regions into two new area codes or to mix the new area code into the same geographic area as the old one, called an area code overlay. The overlay process means adjacent homes could have different area codes. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 14:51:57 -0400 Subject: Bell Canada and Bank of Montreal Offer Bell MasterCard Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada From: ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) Here is a press release from Bell Canada and Bank of Montreal. I found the press release on the Canada NewsWire web site at http://www.newswire.ca/ I assume that the new card will only be available to residents of Canada. BANK OF MONTREAL AND BELL CANADA TEAM UP TO OFFER THE NEW BELL MASTERCARD TORONTO, May 1 /CNW/ - A combined credit card and telephone calling card, a Canadian first, will be launched this May by Bank of Montreal and Bell Canada. Consumers will earn points toward free long distance just by using the new no-fee Bell MasterCard card for their credit card purchases and calling card calls. Bell Canada, which serves Ontario and Quebec, will be the first telecommunications company to offer the card. Eight other Stentor alliance companies will join with Bank of Montreal to offer their co-branded Bank of Montreal MasterCards across Canada over the next year. Applications for the Bell MasterCard will be available from both Bank of Montreal branches and Bell Phonecentre stores starting May 27. The card will display the credit card and the calling card numbers. "We believe that our partnership with Bell Canada and Stentor in developing Bank of Montreal's Bell MasterCard fits in with our strategy of providing `best value' products and services to our customers," said Rob Pearce, Senior Vice-President, Electronic Banking, Bank of Montreal. "The card will offer added convenience and will be rewarding to use." "We're delighted to work with Bank of Montreal to offer consumers a card with all the features of a credit card and a calling card and to give consumers the opportunity to earn free long distance on all their purchases," said Bob Cheriton, Vice President - Card Services at Bell Canada. "Rewarding customer loyalty is something the Stentor companies have been doing for years through loyalty programs," said Stentor's Sal Iacono. "We expect customers who use the new telephone companies' MasterCard could earn up to one month or more of free long distance per year." The program rewards customers with points towards free long distance in two ways: - for all purchases made with the card, including telephone calls that are purchased by swiping the card at pay phones equipped to accept charge cards, - when customers key in their calling card number, which results in the call being charged to their telephone bill. The new Bell MasterCard will carry no annual fee. The interest rate will be competitive with other reward-based cards and will be set at 18.9%. The cards will be accepted at more than 13 million locations worldwide and can be used at banking machines around the globe. Free supplementary cards are also available. Bank of Montreal is a highly diversified financial services institution that earns about half of its income outside Canada. It ranks as one of the 10 largest banks in North America with average assets of C$150 billion. Together with Nesbitt Burns, Canada's largest full-service investment firm, Harris Bank, a major U.S. mid-west corporate and private bank with one of the largest community bank networks in greater Chicago, and its alliance with Grupo Financiero Bancomer, the second-largest Mexican financial institution, Bank of Montreal serves customers throughout North America and around the world. Bell Canada, the largest Canadian telecommunications operating company, markets a full range of state-of-the-art products and services to more than seven million business and residence customers in Ontario and Quebec. The Stentor Alliance was formed in 1992 by Canada's leading providers of telecommunications services. The alliance works together with customers across Canada to economically deliver leading-edge local, national and international telecommunications services. Members of the alliance are: AGT, BC TEL, Bell Canada, Island Tel, Manitoba Telephone System, Maritime Tel & Tel, NBTel, NewTel Communications, NorthwesTel, Quebec-Telephone and SaskTel. For further information: Bank of Montreal, Joe Barbera, (416) 927-2740; Ronald Monet, (514) 877-1101; Internet: http://www.bmo.com; Bell Canada, Barbara Schurman, (416) 581-4251; Suzanne Ricard, (514) 870-6093; Internet: http://www.bell.ca; Stentor Communications, Joanne Stanley, (613) 781-3301, Internet: StanleyJP(at)Stentor.ca; Eileen Inrig, (613) 785-3723, Internet: InrigE(at)Stentor.ca Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen/ ------------------------------ From: rreader@laker.net Subject: Teleplaza Telecommunication Resources Directory Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 20:27:46 -0400 Organization: BridgenetLC - 305.374.3031 - 100 S. Biscayne Blvd, Miami Teleplaza Telecommunication Resources Directory http://www.teleplaza.com Interactive library of telecommunication, telemarketing, computer telephony and internet information, Also products and services, legislation, job postings, trade questions, world events, web site design, download software, search engines, advertising, submit lists, internet tips, lunch room, survey and more. Web Site features include excellent navigation, fast download time, extensive database, minimal graphic size, order forms, Java animation, frames, icons and more. The LUNCH Room features 250 fun and cool links to do on your lunch break including food, on-line games, puzzles, comics, riddles, funnies, sports, T.V., movies, music, jokes, crosswords, 3-D stereograms and more! ------------------------------ From: tbond Subject: Area Code Database by City or Zip Date: 1 May 1996 16:48:01 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet With all the changes in area codes which are occuring. I was wondering if there was a data base of area codes available which is searchable either by city or zip code. Cheers, DanL [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Carl Moore used to keep all those files. I'd begin by asking him where its at now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: edhample@sprynet.com Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 06:21:37 -0700 Subject: Phone Service Along the Kissimmee River About two years ago, I went on a boating/fishing trip along Florida's Kissimmee River, which flows south from an area south of Orlando, and eventually empties into Lake Okeechobee. The chain of lakes that make up the upper portion of the river are known as some of the best freshwater fishing in Florida. One of our stops was at a fish camp on Tiger Lake. One morning, I had to make a call to Tampa to inform a friend of a change in plans. There wasn't a payphone to be found in the camp, so I walked into the bait shop/camp office to inquire about a telephone. I was quite surprised to see an old wooden plug-type switchboard in the back corner of the office. I asked about placing a call to Tampa. The clerk told me that she couldn't get a call through to Tampa until after 10:00 (it was about 8:30am) when the owner of the camp across the lake opened up her office/switchboard. She continued to explain that the owner of Bud's Fish Camp could patch her through to an operator at Indian Lake Estates Co-Op who could patch me through to a GTE operator in Lake Wales, who could give me a connection to Tampa. I gave up and returned to my boat, where I contacted a Marine Operator in Daytona Beach via VHF radio who was able to put the call through within seconds. We stopped at several other fish camps during the remainder of our week-long trip down the Kissimmee. I made a point of scoping out the telephone facilities at each stop. I was surprised to find that many of these camps where connected to the outside world only through a single phone line to the next camp up the river, and eventually you would find a camp that had a direct connection to the real world. We made the same trip again a year later - this time armed with a cell-phone. I was very surprised to find that cellular coverage in this part of the Florida outback is quite good. There was only a short stretch of the river south of Indian Lake Estates where my phone indicated 'No Service'. Ed Kleinhample Consultant from 9 to 5 boater - all other hours. Land O' Lakes, FL. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 08:25:31 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: Required PIN Dialing Over Cellular Phone jeff777@netcom.com said: > Here's a question regarding dialing a PIN number over a cellular > service that not only requires a PIN number to be dialed, but also > requires the PIN number to be entered after first dialing the phone > number and hitting the SEND button. This applies more to cellular > carriers in the northeastern U.S. When the PIN number is being sent > to the carrier, is the PIN number being transmitted to the carrier via > DTMF tones or through a control channel? Whichever way the PIN number > is transmitted, is this process consistent with all carriers that > require the PIN number to be dialed after sending th phone number > first? Any information would be greatly appreciated. So far, there appears to be two methods of PIN notification, from the cellular phone to the cellular switch. Anybody out there that can refine this list, or add to it, let me know. 1) PIN notification at turn on. After the user turns on the phone for the first time, they dial their PIN, then SEND. In effect, this is dialing the PIN as a phone number, sending the data over the RECC (REverse Control Channel) data stream, similar to any other call. The switch accepts the PIN, verifies it, then notifies the user if the PIN is good (double stutter tone, or double ringing?) over the FOVC (FOrward Voice Channel) audio. For as long as the phone is on (or continues to answer the FOCC (FOrward Control Channel) audit requests via the RECC), the person can complete a phone call. If the phone does *not* answer a FOCC audit request, the phone line is 'deactivated', and the person must go through the 'registration process' again. Major weakness -- the ESN, MIN and PIN go across the RECC data stream in one burst, negating almost everything that this PIN requirement is attempting to accomplish. If someone is monitoring the RECC data stream, and they see a good ESN, good MIN, and a (ie:) four digit phone number (PIN) going across, they can take over your account. 2) PIN notification on every call. The person dials the number and presses SEND, hears a double ring (or stutter tone), then dials their PIN and SEND again -- if the PIN is good, the call is completed. This is the method my local providor is using. The person dials the phone number and presses SEND -- the ESN, MIN and dialed number is broadcast over the RECC data stream. The cellular phone is assigned a FOVC via the FOCC, and over the FOVC audio, the person hears a double ring tone. The person dials their PIN, and presses SEND -- the PIN is sent over the REVC (REverse Voice Channel) data stream as a 'dialed phone number' -- as if they were trying to initiate a three-way call from the cellular phone. When the PIN is verified, the call is completed. To the best of my knowledge, the DTMFs are/aren't broadcast over the REVC audio depending on your cellular phone -- most will, for instance to retrieve voice mail or checking your bank balance. But, the DTMFs are *not* broadcast over the FOVC audio -- the audio appears to be muted until the PIN is verified. Why does this matter? IMO, there was a definite reason to do this 'mute until PIN verified'. 'ESN grabbers' are (relatively) cheap and (easily) attainable, and (almost) all cellular phones on the market can monitor forward channel audio and data streams. A very easy way to break this method would be to wait until the dead of night, so that the FOVC assignment would be easily guessable. A person would set their ESN-grabber to the closest FOCC (347, as an example). When the next call request came in, they would monitor the FOVC audio for that call (to hear the DTMFs), and since it is the dead of night and no one is using any of the freqs on the cell, it will (almost) always be assigned to the same FOVC channel (600, as an example, the first channel to be assigned for that cell). So, they use the ESN-grabber to get the ESN and MIN, then grab the DTMFs audio from the FOVC (if it *were* unmuted), then decode the DTMFs using any of many means. Since the audio *is* muted, this (quite) simple method will *not* work. There are some obvious ways around this, but they involve more equipment, and aren't 'simple' any more. So to answer your question, it appears that both methods use the data stream (one over the RECC, one over the REVC), and not the DTMFs (over the REVC audio), to verify the PIN. One obvious reason is that if a person makes a mistake with DTMF audio, they have to press CLR and correct their mistake. Over audio, this will confuse the switch. Over data streams, the data isn't send u ntil all the corrections are fixed and SEND is pressed, and the switch gets one (good) data stream of PIN data. As for consistency, it would require verifying every carrier to see how they are using a PIN -- but I would presume they are the same, since the switch software is probably supplied by the same (group of) companies. But I would also presume that the providors will be very tight-lipped about their individual PIN implementations. Since I don't work for a providor (and do you think they'd actually hire me now?:) ), most of this is backward engineered information. If anyone can clarify or append to this data, feel free to e-mail me directly. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net http://www.rust.net/~bagdon Katharine aNd Steve Bagdon (KNS) ------------------------------ From: yorick@conch.aa.msen.com (Steve Arlow) Subject: Re: Slamming Dunked Date: 01 May 1996 23:09:48 -0400 Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI. In article , Stan Schwartz wrote: > From {Long Island Newsday} Online (www.newsday.com), forwarded FYI to > the Digest: > U.S. Billing told her she had not had AT&T for months. "What I did > have," she was told, "was a company called Long Distance Services." > [...] What boggles the mind is that the owners of this company are not in jail -- they are clearly engaged in large-scale, organized fraud. I, too, was "slammed" -- despite my request to Ameritech that my default LD carrier not be switched without my express written permission -- by "Long Distance Services". Now, I noticed this on the very first affected bill, but consider: 1) The company logo graphic was simply the words "L. D. SERVICES" in an exact duplication of the font that Ameritech uses on the rest of their phone bill. This is a clear attempt to fool the consumer into thinking that this is not the logo of a separate company, but just a lable for the LD section of Ameritech's bill. 2) When I called 1-700-555-4141, where LD carriers are required by (I believe) FCC regulations to identify themselves, there was only a recording with an angry voice saying "You are NOT authorized to make this call!" These two items clearly show fraudulent intent on the part of this company. They not only took over my LD Phone service without my consent, and without notifying me in any way, but they *took the above steps to deliberately conceal what they had done*. (And no, I never enter contests or the like, and I routinely hang up on telemarketers.) When I complained to Ameritech, I was proptly switched back to my former carrier, without fee, and was assured (again) that my carrier would not be changed without my written permission. But when I refused to pay for the phone calls charged to this company, I was told that since I had made the calls and recieved service, I was still liable for the charges -- though they might be able to adjust them to match the charges my regular LD carrier would have charged. I replied (condensing several conversations here) that I had supposedly done business with this company without my knowledge or consent, and that they were no different from the travelling con-artists who come by and quickly "seal your driveway" and then knock on your door to present you with a bill for their services -- which you were the unknowing and unwilling recipient of. I steadfastly refused to pay one cent for these calls, and after repeated complaints, and withholding that amount from my bills for several months, the charges -- for all phone calls charged to "Long Distance Services" -- were finally removed from my bill. I wholeheartedly recommend that everyone in a similar situation follow the same course of action that I did, ideally calling your state's attorney general as well. Be polite to your RBOC, but persistant and inflexible, and keep asking to speak to higher- level management until you get satisfaction. Unlike other LD carriers, whose practices may be called questionable, "Long Distance Services" is unmistakably a criminal enterprise engaged in deliberate fraud, and we must not allow them to profit from it. Hopefully, they will eventually be prosecuted. Steve Arlow, Yorick Software 39336 Polo Club Dr. #103, Farmington Hills, MI 48335 http://www.msen.com/~yorick ------------------------------ From: walkerrb@www.hendrix.edu (Babu Mengelepouti) Date: Thu, 2 May 96 04:00:18 CDT Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? > Someone commented to me a few days ago that when placing third-number > billed calls via AT&T, that there appeared to be no verification at > the number to which the call is being billed. In other words, AT&T is > completing calls without getting verification from someone at the > billing number. > So in curiosity, I tried to place third-number calls (to numbers that > are *known* to always be busy or no-answer, or that have been > disconnected and therfore don't supervise, to avoid charges.) > Both BellSouth and AT&T, which both use "automated" operator-call > processing systems, completed my test third-number calls ("billed" to my > other line, which is not collect- or third-number-restricted) WITHOUT > calling the other line for verification. The calls went through! > When did LD carriers stop verifying third-number billings? This is > clearly an opportunity for fraud, since no PIN or other code is > required. (I assume if the third-number activity became excessive, that > the carrier would step in to do something, but still, not checking the > identity of the caller is a bit ridiculous.) This situation has existed for quite some time with AT&T, depending on the phone number you're calling from. If you're calling from a business or residence phone, you can *usually* third-party bill a number without verification. This is in part why you can't third-party bill calls to numbers in Canada anymore. Seems as though the naughty phreaks figured out that you could bill *disconnected* numbers in Canada, and there was no "back-bill" agreement between Stentor and AT&T (this later changed, but because, assumedly, of the lack of a "no-3rd-party" database the billing agreement was terminated). You should know that if you third-party bill a number without authorization, and the number is in the US: - It's a federal crime (minor technicality) - The party you bill will probably call AT&T and contest the charge, and - You'll get back-billed. As the holder of a business or residence line *you* are responsible for the calls placed from your line, regardless of who placed them. This includes unverified third-party and credit card calls. AT&T also adds an extra charge to calls they back-bill. See the Winter 1996 issue of 2600 Magazine for more information on AT&T procedures; there's a quite good article on AT&T's "RAMP" customer service system and many of their standard customer service procedures. Quite enlightening. Incidentally ... what if you were to do this from a cellphone? An interesting loophole exists where in areas that SS7 isn't linked to the cell switch. One can call a Sprint operator, have the Sprint operator bill a call to anywhere in the *world* to the "number you're calling from," and the *cell carrier* gets the bill -- because Sprint gets the number of the trunk you're calling from rather than your mobile number. Even more murky if you were to third-party bill a number using Sprint or another carrier from your cellphone -- Sprint, like AT&T, often doesn't verify acceptance of third-party billed calls. Of course, all of this is patently illegal and there's no way of knowing whether you'll get away with it or not without first trying it (minor technicality), which could result in an unpleasant surprise. You also still will be billed for airtime on those calls -- even though you might manage to get around long distance. I haven't tried this -- a naughty phreak suggested I try it, and I politely declined. I'm calling from Saudi Arabia. walkerrb@www.hendrix.edu ------------------------------ From: miked@megalink.net (Michael Newton) Subject: Old Contel PC F.E.P. For Switch? Date: Thu, 03 May 1996 12:01:59 GMT Organization: Megalink Internet I have a front end processor that we aquired with GTE exchanges that is based on a Wyse 80286 chassis to be used with a DMS-10 ... any information on operation or ideas on sources of docs would be a help! Thanks, Mike Newton miked@oxford.megalink.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #210 ******************************