textfiles/magazines/PRIVATELINE/privateline.v2n3

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.  While 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 |