textfiles/phreak/pirate2.007

 

   *******************************************************

   *  PHILE 7: Teleconnect Wants Your Rights             *

   *******************************************************

 

The Lifeblood of the BBS world is the telephone line.

If teleco czars begin abusing their public trust by

deciding who we can or cannot call, it endangers not only

the BSS world, but fundamental freedoms of expression and

assembly. Sometimes individual bureaucrats screw up. They

make bad decisions, break agreements, or simply are

incompetent. No big deal. The danger comes when, by policy,

a national utility attempts to curtail or freedoms.

TELECONNECT, a long distance carrier out of Iowa, has done this.

The three contributions below illustrate how TELECONNECT

has attempted to bully some of its users. In the first,

TC attempted to block numbers to a bulletin board. In the

second, it monitored one its users and decided who that user

could and could not call. The third illustrates Teleconnects

arrogance.

 

BBS users tend to be a bit fragmented, and when we have a problem,

we deal with it individually. We should start banding together.

If you are having, or have had, a problem with your teleco

crowd, let us know. We will not print real names without

permission.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

                   BLOCKING OF LONG-DISTANCE CALLS

                          by Jim Schmickley

                    Hawkeye PC, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

 

 

 

     SUMMARY.  This article describes the "blocking" by one

long-distance telephone company of access through their system to

certain telephone numbers, particularly BBS numbers.  The

blocking is applied in a very arbitrary manner, and the company

arrogantly asserts that BBS SYSOPS and anyone who uses a computer

modem are "hackers."

 

     The company doesn't really want to discuss the situation,

but it appears the following scenario occurred.  The proverbial

"person or persons unknown" identified one or more "valid"

long-distance account numbers, and subsequently used those

numbers on one or more occasions to fraudulently call a

legitimate computer bulletin board system (BBS).  When the

long-distance company discovered the fraudulent charges, they

"blocked" the line without bothering to investigate or contacting

the BBS System Operator to obtain his assistance.  In fact, the

company did not even determine the SYSOP's name.

 

     The long-distance carrier would like to pretend that the

incident which triggered the actions described in this article

was an isolated situation, not related to anything else in the

world.  However, there are major principles of free, uninhibited

communications and individual rights deeply interwoven into the

issue.  And, there is still the lingering question, "If one

long-distance company is interfering with their customers'

communications on little more than a whim, are other long-distant

companies also interfering with the American public's right of

free 'electronic speech'?"

 

     CALL TO ACTION.  Your inputs and protests are needed now to

counter the long-distance company's claims that "no one was hurt

by their blocking actions because nobody complained."  Obviously

nobody complained for a long time because the line blocking was

carried out in such a manner that no one realized, until April

1988, what was being done.

 

     Please read through the rest of this article (yes, it's

long, but you should find it very interesting) and judge for

yourself.  Then, please write to the organizations listed at the

end of the article; insist that your right to telephone whatever

number you choose should not be impaired by the arbitrary

decision of some telephone company bureaucrat who really doesn't

care about the rights of his customers.  Protest in the strongest

terms.  And, remember:  the rights you save WILL BE YOUR OWN!

 

     SETTING THE SCENE.  Teleconnect is a long-distance carrier

and telephone direct marketing company headquartered in Cedar

Rapids, Iowa.  The company is about eight years old, and has a

long-distance business base of approximately 200,000 customers.

Teleconnect has just completed its first public stock offering,

and is presently (August 1988) involved in a merger which will

make it the nation's fourth-largest long-distance carrier.  It is

a very rapidly-growing company, having achieved its spectacular

growth by offering long-distance service at rates advertised as

being 15% to 30% below AT&T's rates.

 

     When Teleconnect started out in the telephone

interconnection business, few, if any, exchanges were set up for

"equal access", so the company set up a network of local access

numbers (essentially just unlisted local PABXs - private

automatic branch exchanges) and assigned a six-digit account

number to each customer.  Later, a seventh "security" digit was

added to all account numbers.  (I know what you're thinking -

what could be easier for a war-games dialer than to seek out

"valid" seven-digit numbers?)  Teleconnect now offers direct

"equal access" dialing on most exchanges.  But, the older access

number/account code system is still in place for those exchanges

which do not offer "equal access."  And, that system is still

very useful for customers who place calls from their offices or

other locations away from home.

 

     "BLOCKING" DISCOVERED.  In early April 1988, a friend

mentioned that Teleconnect was "blocking" certain telephone lines

where they detected computer tone.  In particular, he had been

unable to call Curt Kyhl's Stock Exchange BBS in Waterloo, Iowa.

This sounded like something I should certainly look into, so I

tried to call Curt's BBS.

 

     CONTACT WITH TELECONNECT.  Teleconnect would not allow my

call to go through.  Instead, I got a recorded voice message

stating that the call was a local call from my location.  A

second attempt got the same recorded message.  At least, they

were consistent.

 

     I called my Teleconnect service representative and asked

just what the problem was.  After I explained what happened, she

suggested that it must be a local call.  I explained that I

really didn't think a 70 mile call from Cedar Rapids to Waterloo

was a local call.  She checked on the situation and informed me

that the line was being "blocked."  I asked why, and she

"supposed it was at the customer's request."  After being advised

that statement made no sense, she admitted she really didn't know

why.  So, on to her supervisor.

 

     The first level supervisor verified the line was being

"blocked by Teleconnect security", but she couldn't or wouldn't

say why.  Then, she challenged, "Why do you want to call that

number?"  That was the wrong question to ask this unhappy

customer, and the lady quickly discovered that bit of information

was none of her business,  And, on to her supervisor.

 

     The second level supervisor refused to reveal any

information of value to a mere customer, but she did suggest that

any line Teleconnect was blocking could still be reached through

AT&T or Northwestern Bell by dialing 10288-1.  When questioned

why Teleconnect, which for years had sold its long-distance

service on the basis of a cost-saving over AT&T rates, was now

suggesting that customers use AT&T, the lady had no answer.

 

     I was then informed that, if I needed more information, I

should contact Dan Rogers, Teleconnect's Vice President for

Customer Service.  That sounded good; "Please connect me."  Then,

"I'm sorry, but Mr. Rogers is out of town, and won't be back

until next week."  "Next week?"  "But he does call in regularly.

Maybe he could call you back before that."  Mr. Rogers did call

me back, later that day, from Washington, D.C. where he and some

Teleconnect "security people" were attending a conference on

telephone security.

 

     TELECONNECT RESPONDS, A LITTLE.  Dan Rogers prefaced his

conversation with, "I'm just the mouthpiece; I don't understand

all the technical details.  But, our security people are blocking

that number because we've had some problems with it in the past."

I protested that the allegation of "problems" didn't make sense

because the number was for a computer bulletin board system

operated by a reputable businessman, Curt Kyhl.

 

     Mr. Rogers said that I had just given Teleconnect new

information; they had not been able to determine whose number

they were blocking.  "Our people are good, but they're not that

good.  Northwestern Bell won't release subscriber information to

us."  And, when he got back to his office the following Monday,

he would have the security people check to see if the block could

be removed.

 

     The following Monday, another woman from Teleconnect called

to inform me that they had checked the line, and they were

removing the block from it.  She added the comment that this was

the first time in four years that anyone had requested that a

line be unblocked.  I suggested that it probably wouldn't be the

last time.

 

     In a later telephone conversation, Dan Rogers verified that

the block had been removed from Curt Kyhl's line, but warned that

the line would be blocked again "if there were any more problems

with it."  A brief, non-conclusive discussion of Teleconnect's

right to take such action then ensued.  I added that the fact

that Teleconnect "security" had been unable to determine the

identity of the SYSOP of the blocked board just didn't make

sense; that it didn't sound as if the "security people" were very

competent.  Mr. Rogers then admitted that every time the security

people tried to call the number, they got a busy signal (and,

although Mr. Rogers didn't admit it, they just "gave up", and

arbitrarily blocked the line.)  Oh, yes, the lying voice message,

"This is a local call...", was not intended to deceive anyone

according to Dan Rogers.  It was just that Teleconnect could only

put so many messages on their equipment, and that was the one

they selected for blocked lines.

 

     BEGINNING THE PAPER TRAIL.  Obviously, Teleconnect was not

going to pay much attention to telephone calls from mere

customers.  On April 22, Ben Blackstock, practicing attorney and

veteran SYSOP, wrote to Mr. Rogers urging that Teleconnect permit

their customers to call whatever numbers they desired.  Ben

questioned Teleconnect's authority to block calls, and suggested

that such action had serious overlays of "big brother."  He also

noted that "you cannot punish the innocent to get at someone who

is apparently causing Teleconnect difficulty."

 

     Casey D. Mahon, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of

Teleconnect, replied to Ben Blackstock's letter on April 28th.

This response was the start of Teleconnect's seemingly endless

stream of vague, general allegations regarding "hackers" and

"computer billboards."  Teleconnect insisted they did have

authority to block access to telephone lines, and cited 18 USC

2511(2)(a)(i) as an example of the authority.  The Teleconnect

position was summed up in the letter:

 

     "Finally, please be advised the company is willing to

'unblock' the line in order to ascertain whether or not illegal

hacking has ceased.  In the event, however, that theft of

Teleconnect long distance services through use of the bulletin

board resumes, we will certainly block access through the

Teleconnect network again and use our authority under federal law

to ascertain the identity of the hacker or hackers."

 

     THE GAUNTLET IS PICKED UP.  Mr. Blackstock checked the cited

section of the U.S. Code, and discovered that it related only to

"interception" of communications, but had nothing to do with

"blocking".  He advised me of his opinion and also wrote back to

Casey Mahon challenging her interpretation of that section of

federal law.

 

     In his letter, Ben noted that, "Either Teleconnect is

providing a communication service that is not discriminatory, or

it is not."  He added that he would "become upset, to say the

least" if he discovered that Teleconnect was blocking access to

his BBS.  Mr. Blackstock concluded by offering to cooperate with

Teleconnect in seeking a declaratory judgment regarding their

"right" to block a telephone number based upon the actions of

some third party.  To date, Teleconnect has not responded to that

offer.

 

     On May 13th, I sent my own reply to Casey Mahon, and

answered the issues of her letter point by point.  I noted that

even I, not an attorney, knew the difference between

"interception" and "blocking", and if Teleconnect didn't, they

could check with any football fan.  My letter concluded:

 

     "Since Teleconnect's 'blocking' policies are ill-conceived,

thoughtlessly arbitrary, anti-consumer, and of questionable

legality, they need to be corrected immediately.  Please advise

me how Teleconnect is revising these policies to ensure that I

and all other legitimate subscribers will have uninhibited access

to any and all long-distance numbers we choose to call."

 

     Casey Mahon replied on June 3rd.  Not unexpectedly, she

brushed aside all my arguments.  She also presented the first of

the sweeping generalizations, with total avoidance of specifics,

which we have since come to recognize as a Teleconnect trademark.

One paragraph neatly sums Casey Mahon's letter:

 

     "While I appreciate the time and thought that obviously went

into your letter, I do not agree with your conclusion that

Teleconnect's efforts to prevent theft of its services are in any

way inappropriate.  The inter-exchange industry has been plagued,

throughout its history, by individuals who devote substantial

ingenuity to the theft of long distance services.  It is not

unheard of for an interexchange company to lose as much as

$500,000 a month to theft.  As you can imagine, such losses, over

a period of time, could drive a company out of business."

 

     ESCALATION.  By this time it was very obvious that

Teleconnect was going to remain recalcitrant until some third

party, preferably a regulatory agency, convinced them of the

error of their ways.  Accordingly, I assembled the file and added

a letter of complaint addressed to the Iowa Utilities Board.  The

complaint simply asked that Teleconnect be directed to institute

appropriate safeguards to ensure that "innocent third parties"

would no longer be adversely affected by Teleconnect's arbitrary

"blocking" policies.

 

     My letter of complaint was dated July 7th, and the Iowa

Utilities Board replied on July 13th.  The reply stated that

Teleconnect was required to respond to my complaint by August

2nd, and the Board would then propose a resolution.  If the

proposed resolution was not satisfactory, I could request that

the file be reopened and the complaint be reconsidered.  If the

results of that action were not satisfactory, a formal hearing

could be requested.

 

     After filing the complaint, I also sent a copy of the file

to Congressman Tom Tauke.  Mr. Tauke represents the Second

Congressional District of Iowa, which includes Cedar Rapids, and

is also a member of the House Telecommunica-tions Subcommittee.

I have subsequently had a personal conversation with Mr. Tauke as

well as additional correspondence on the subject.  He seems to

have a deep and genuine interest in the issue, but at my request,

is simply an interested observer at this time.  It is our hope

that the Iowa Utilities Board will propose an acceptable

resolution without additional help.

 

     AN UNRESPONSIVE RESPONSE.  Teleconnect's "response" to the

Iowa Utilities Board was filed July 29th.  As anticipated, it was

a mass of vague generalities and unsubstantiated allegations.

However, it offered one item of new, and shocking, information;

Curt Kyhl's BBS had been blocked for ten months, from June 6,

1987 to mid-April 1988.  (At this point it should be noted that

Teleconnect's customers had no idea that the company was blocking

some of our calls.  We just assumed that calls weren't going

through because of Teleconnect's technical problems.)

 

     Teleconnect avoided putting any specific, or even relevant,

information in their letter.  However, they did offer to whisper

in the staff's ear; "Teleconnect would be willing to share

detailed information regarding this specific case, and hacking in

general, with the Board's staff, as it has in the past with

various federal and local law enforcement agencies, including the

United States Secret Service.  Teleconnect respectfully requests,

however, that the board agree to keep such information

confidential, as to do otherwise would involve public disclosure

of ongoing investigations of criminal conduct and the methods by

which interexchange carriers, including Teleconnect, detect such

theft."

 

     There is no indication of whether anyone felt that such a

"confidential" meeting would violate Iowa's Open Meetings Law.

And, nobody apparently questioned why, during a ten-months long

"ongoing investigation", Teleconnect seemed unable to determine

the name of the individual whose line they were blocking.  Of

course, whatever they did was justified because (in their own

words), "Teleconnect had suffered substantial dollar losses as a

result of the theft of long distance services by means of

computer 'hacking' utilizing the computer billboard which is

available at that number."

 

     Teleconnect's most vile allegation was, "Many times, the

hacker will enter the stolen authorization code on computer

billboards, allowing others to steal long distance services by

utilizing the code."  But no harm was done by the blocking of the

BBS number because, "During the ten month period the number was

blocked, Teleconnect received no complaints from anyone claiming

to be the party to whom the number was assigned."  The fact that

Curt Kyhl had no way of knowing his line was being blocked might

have had something to do with the fact that he didn't complain.

 

     It was also pointed out that I really had no right to

complain since, "First, and foremost, Mr. Schmickley is not the

subscriber to the number." That's true; I'm just a long-time

Teleconnect customer who was refused service because of an

alleged act performed by an unknown third party.

 

     Then Teleconnect dumped on the Utilities Board staff a copy

of a seven page article from Business Week Magazine, entitled "Is

Your Computer Secure?" This article was totally unrelated to the

theft of long-distance service, except for an excerpt from a

sidebar story about a West German hackers' club.  The story

reported that, "In 1984, Chaos uncovered a security hole in the

videotex system that the German telephone authority, the Deutsche

Bundespost, was building.  When the agency ignored club warnings

that messages in a customer's private electronic mailbox weren't

secure, Chaos members set out to prove the point.  They logged on

to computers at Hamburger Sparkasse, a savings bank, and

programmed them to make thousands of videotex calls to Chaos

headquarters on one weekend.  After only two days of this, the

bank owed the Bundespost $75,000 in telephone charges."

 

     RESOLUTION WITH A RUBBER STAMP.  The staff of the Iowa

Utilities Board replied to my complaint by letter on August 19th.

They apparently accepted the vague innuendo submitted by

Teleconnect without any verification; "Considering the illegal

actions reportedly to be taking place on number (319) 236-0834,

it appears the blocking was reasonable.  However, we believe the

Board should be notified shortly after the blocking and

permission should be obtained to continue the blocking for any

period of time."

 

     However, it was also noted that, "Iowa Code 476.20 (1)

(1987) states, 'A utility shall not, except in cases of

emergency, discontinue, reduce, or impair service to a community

or a part of a community, except for nonpayment of account or

violation of rules and regulations, unless and until permission

to do so is obtained from the Board."  The letter further

clarified, "Although the Iowa Code is subject to interpretation,

it appears to staff that 'emergency' refers to a relatively short

time..."

 

     CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE.  Since it appeared obvious that the

Utilities Board staff had not questioned or investigated a single

one of Teleconnect's allegations, the staff's response was

absolutely astounding.  Accordingly, I filed a request for

reconsideration on August 22nd.

 

     Three points were raised in the request for reconsideration:

(1) The staff's evaluation should have been focused on the denial

of service to me and countless others of Teleconnect's 200,000

customers, and not just on the blocking of incoming calls to one

BBS.  (2) The staff accepted all of Teleconnect's allegations as

fact, although not one bit of hard evidence was presented in

support of those allegations.  (3)  In the words of the staff's

own citation, it appeared that Teleconnect had violated Iowa Code

476.20 (1) (1987) continuously over a ten months' period, perhaps

as long as four years.

 

     Since Teleconnect had dumped a seven page irrelevant

magazine article on the staff, it seemed only fair to now offer a

two page completely relevant story to them.  This was "On Your

Computer - Bulletin Boards", from the June 1988 issue of

"Changing Times".  This excellent article cited nine BBSs as

"good places to get started".  Among the nine listed BBSs was

Curt Kyhl's "Stock Exchange, Waterloo, Iowa (319-236-0834)."

Even the geniuses at Teleconnect ought to be able to recognize

that this BBS, recommended by a national magazine, is the very

same one they blocked for ten months.

 

     MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH.  You are now up-to-date on the

entire story.  Now, we are in the process of spreading the word

so that all interested people can contact the Iowa authorities so

they will get the message that this case is much bigger than the

blocking of one BBS.  YOU can help in two ways:

 

     First, upload this file to bulletin boards you call.  Let's

get this message distributed to BBS and modem users across the

nation, because the threat is truly to communications across the

nation.

 

     Second, read the notice appended to this article, and ACT.

The notice was distributed at the last meeting of Hawkeye PC

Users' Group.  If you are a Teleconnect customer, it is very

important that you write the agencies listed on the notice.  If

you are not a Teleconnect customer, but are interested in

preserving your rights to uninhibited communications, you can

help the cause by writing to those agencies, also.

 

     Please, people, write now!  Before it is too late!

 

 

                  T E L E C O N N E C T   C U S T O M E R S = = =

              = = = = = = = = = =   = = = = = = = = = = =

 

 

         If you are user of Teleconnect's long distance telephone

    service, you need to be aware of their "blocking" policy:

 

         Teleconnect has been "lashing out" against the callers

    of bulletin boards and other "computer numbers" by blocking

    access of legitimate subscribers to certain phone numbers to

    which calls have been made with fraudulent Teleconnect charge

    numbers.  Curt Kyhl's Stock Exchange Bulletin Board in

    Waterloo has been "blocked" in such a manner.  Teleconnect

    representatives have indicated that other "computer numbers"

    have been the objects of similar action in the past, and that

    they (Teleconnect) have a "right" to continue such action in

    the future.

 

         Aside from the trampling of individual rights guaranteed

    by the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, this

    arbitrary action serves only to "punish the innocent"

    Teleconnect customers and bulletin board operators, while

    doing absolutely nothing to identify, punish, or obtain

    payment from the guilty.  The capping irony is that

    Teleconnect, which advertises as offering significant savings

    over AT&T long-distance rates, now suggests to complaining

    customers that the blocked number can still be dialed through

    AT&T.

 

         Please write to Teleconnect.  Explain how long you have

    been a customer, that your modem generates a significant

    amount of the revenue they collect from you, and that you

    strongly object to their abritrarily deciding what numbers

    you may or may not call.  Challenge their "right" to

    institute a "blocking" policy and insist that the policy be

    changed.  Send your protests to:

 

                     Teleconnect Company Mr. Dan Rogers, Vice

                     President

                         for Customer Service 500 Second Avenue,

                     S.E. Cedar Rapids, Iowa  52401

 

         A complaint filed with the Iowa Utilities Board has been

    initially resolved in favor of Teleconnect.  A request for

    reconsideration has been filed, and the time is NOW for YOU

    to write letters to the State of Iowa.  Please write NOW to:

 

                     Mr. Gerald W. Winter, Supervisor, Consumer

                          Services

                     Iowa State Utilities Board Lucas State

                     Office Building Des Moines, Iowa  50319

 

         And to:

 

                     Mr. James Maret Office of the Consumer

                     Advocate Lucas State Office Building Des

                     Moines, Iowa  50319

 

              Write now.  The rights you save WILL be your own.

 

August 28,1988

 

     After filing a request for reconsideration of my complaint,

I received a reply from the Iowa State Utilities Board which

said, in part:

 

"Thank you for your letter dated August 22, 1988, with additional

comments concerning your complaint on the blocking of access to

certain telephone numbers by Teleconnect.

 

"To ensure that the issues are properly investigated, we are

forwarding your comments to the company and requesting a response

by September 15, 1988."

 

     Again, this is a very large issue.  Simply stated, it is:

Does ANY telephone company have the right to "block" (or refuse

to place) calls to ANY number on the basis of unsubstantiated,

uninvestigated charges of "telephone fraud", especially when the

alleged fraud was committed by a third party without the

knowledge of the called party?  In the specific case, the

question becomes; Can a long distance carrier refuse to handle

calls to a BBS solely because some unknown crook has placed

fraudulently-charged calls to that BBS?

 

     Read BLOCKERS.ARC, and then make YOUR voice be heard by

lodging protests with the agencies listed in that file.

Incidentally, when you write, please cite file number C-88-161.

 

     If you have any additional information which might be

helpful in this battle, please let me know.  I check the

following BBSs very regularly:

 

     Hawkeye RBBS, Ben Blackstock, SYSOP    319-363-3314

     ($15/year) The Forum, John Oren, SYSOP

     319-365-3163   (Register Free)

 

     You can also send info to me via U.S. Mail to:

 

                     7441 Commune Court, N.E. Cedar Rapids, Iowa

                     52402

 

     I hope that, by this time, you realize how significant this

battle is for all of us.  If we lose, it opens the door for

telephone companies to dictate to us just who we can (or cannot)

call, especially with modems.  We CAN'T let that happen!  And,

thanks for your support.

 

                                       Jim Schmickley

                                       Hawkeye PC Users' Group

                                       Cedar Rapids, Iowa

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

(Reprinted with permisson from author)

 

17 November, 1988

Customer Service

Teleconnect

P.O. Box 3013

Cedar Rapids, IA  52406-9101

 

 

Dear Persons:

 

I am writing in response to my October Teleconnect bill,  due 13

November, for $120.76.  As you can see, it has not yet been paid,

and I would hope to delay payment until we can come to some equi-

table resolution of what appears to  be a dispute.   The records

should show that I have paid previous bills responsibly.  Hence,

this is neither an attempt to delay nor avoid payment.

My account number is: 01-xxxx-xxxxxx.  My user phone is: 815-xxx-

xxxx.   The phone of record (under  which the account is regis-

tered) is: 815-xxx-xxxx.

 

If possible, you might "flag" my bill so I will not begin receiv-

ing dunning notices until we resolve the problem.

I have several complaints.  One is the bill itself, the other is

the service. I feel my bill has been inflated because of the poor

quality of the service you provide  to certain areas of the coun-

try.   These lines are computer lines,  and those over which the

dispute occurs are 2400 baud lines.   Dropping down to 1200 baud

does not help much. As you can see from my bill, there are numer-

ous repeat calls made to the  same location within a short period

of time.   The primary problems  occured to the following loca-

tions:

1. Highland, CA        714-864-4592

2. Montgomery, AL      205-279-6549

3. Fairbanks, AK       907-479-7215

4. Lubbock, TX         806-794-4362

5. Perrine, FL         305-235-1645

6. Jacksonville, FL    904-721-1166

7. San Marcos, TX      512-754-8182

8. Birmingham, AL      205-979-8409

9. N. Phoenix, AZ      602-789-9269

 

The problem is simply that,  to these destinations,  Teleconnect

can simply not hold a line. AT&T can. Although some of these des-

tinations were held for a few minutes, generally, I cannot depend

on TC service, and have more recently begun using AT&T instead.

Even though it may appear from the records that I maintained some

contact for several minutes,  this time was useless,  because I

cold not complete my business, and the time was wasted.  An equi-

table resolution would be to strike these charges from my bill.

 

I would also hope  that the calls I place through  AT&T to these

destinations will be discounted,  rather than pay the full cost.

I have enclosed my latest AT&T bill,  which includes calls that I

made through them because of either  blocking or lack of quality

service. If I read it correctly, no discount was taken off.   Is

this correct?

 

As you can see from the above list of numbers, there is a pattern

in the poor quality service:  The problem seems to lie in Western

states and in the deep south.  I have no problem with the midwest

or with numbers in the east.

 

I have been told that I should call a service representative when

I have problems. This, however, is not an answer for several rea-

sons.  First,  I have no time to continue to call for service in

the middle of a project.  The calls tend to be late at night, and

time is precious.  Second, on those times I have called, I either

could not get through,  or was put on hold for an indeterminable

time.   Fourth, judging from comments I have received in several

calls to Teleconnect's service representatives,  these seem to be

problems for which there is  no immediate solution,  thus making

repeated calls simply a waste of time.   Finally,  the number of

calls on which  I would be required to seek  assistance would be

excessive.   The inability to hold a line does not seem to be an

occasional anomaly,  but a systematic pattern that suggests that

the service to these areas is, indeed, inadequate.

 

A second problem concerns the Teleconnect policy of blocking cer-

tain numbers.  Blocking is unacceptable.  When calling a blocked

number,  all one receives is a  recorded message that "this is a

local call." Although I have complained about this once I learned

of the intentional blocking,  the message remained the same.   I

was told that one number (301-843-5052) would be unblocked,  and

for several hours it was. Then the blocking resumed.

 

A public utility simply does not  have the right to determine who

its customers may or may not  call.  This constitutes a form of

censorship. You should candidly tell your customers that you must

approve of their calls or you will not place them.  You also have

the obligation to  provide your customers with a  list of those

numbers you will  not service so that they will  not waste their

time attempting to call.  You might also change the message that

indicates a blocked call by saying something "we don't approve of

who you're calling, and won't let you call."

 

I appreciate the need to protect your customers.  However, block-

ing numbers is not appropriate. It is not clear how blocking aids

your investigation, or how blocking will eliminate whatever prob-

lems impelled the action. I request the following:

1.  Unblock the numbers currently blocked.

2.  Provide me with  a complete list of the  numbers you are

    blocking

3.  End the policy of blocking.

I feel Teleconnect has been less  than honest with its customers,

and is a bit precipitous in trampling on rights, even in a worthy

attempt to protect them from  abuses of telephone cheats.   How-

ever, the poor quality of line service,  combined with the appar-

ent violation  of Constitutional rights,  cannot  be tolerated.

Those with whom I have spoken about this matter are polite,  but

the bottom line is that they do  not respond to the problem.   I

would prefer to pay my bill only after we resolve this.

 

Cheerfully,

 

(Name removed by request)

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

 /*/ ST*ZMAG SPECIAL REPORT - by Jerry Cross /*/

     (reprinted from Vol. #28, 7 July, 1989)

 ===============================================

 TELECONNECT CALL BLOCKING UPDATE

 Ctsy (Genesee Atari Group)

 

 Background

 ==========

 

 At the beginning of last year one of my bbs users uploaded a

 file he found on another bbs that he thought I would be

 interested in.  It detailed the story of an Iowa bbs operator

 who discovered that Teleconnect, a long distance carrier,  was

 blocking incoming calls to his bbs without his or the callers

 knowledge.

 

 As an employee of Michigan Bell I was very interested.  I could

 not understand how a company could interfere with the

 transmissions of telephone calls, something that was completely

 unheard of with either AT&T or Michigan Bell in the past.  The

 calls were being blocked, according to Teleconnect public

 relations officials, because large amounts of fraudulent calls

 were being placed through their system.  Rather than attempting

 to discover who was placing these calls, Teleconnect decided to

 take the easy (and cheap) way out by simply block access to the

 number they were calling.  But the main point was that a long

 distance company was intercepting phone calls.  I was very

 concerned.

 

 I did some investigating around the Michigan area to see what

 the long distance carriers were doing, and if they, too, were

 intercepting or blocking phone calls.  I also discovered that

 Teleconnect was just in the process of setting up shop to serve

 Michigan.  Remember, too, that many of the former AT&T customers

 who did not specify which long distance carrier they wanted at

 the time of the AT&T breakup were placed into a pool, and

 divided up by the competing long distance companies.  There are

 a number of Michigan users who are using certain long distance

 carriers not of their choice.

 

 My investigation discovered that Michigan Bell and AT&T have a

 solid, computer backed security system that makes it unnecessary

 for them to block calls.  MCI, Sprint, and a few other companies

 would not comment or kept passing me around to other

 departments, or refused to comment about security measures.

 

 I also discussed this with Michigan Bell Security and was

 informed that any long distance company that needed help

 investigating call fraud would not only receive help, but MBT

 would actually prepare the case and appear in court for

 prosecution!

 

 My calls to Teleconnect were simply ignored.  Letters to the

 public service commission, FCC, and other government departments

 were also ignored.  I did, however, get some cooperation from

 our U.S. Representative Dale Kildee, who filed a complaint in my

 name to the FCC and the Interstate Commerce Commission.  What

 follows is their summary of an FCC investigation to Mr. Kildee's

 office.

 

 ----

 

 Dear Congressman Kildee:

 

 This is in further response to your October 18, 1988 memorandum

 enclosing correspondence from Mr. Gerald R. Cross, President of

 the Genesee Atari Group in Flint, Michigan concerning a reported

 incidence of blocking calls from access to Curt Kyhl's Stock

 Exchange Bulletin Board System in Waterloo, Iowa by Teleconnect,

 a long distance carrier.  Mr. Cross, who also operates a

 bulletin board system (bbs), attaches information indicating

 that Teleconnect blocked callers from access via its network to

 Mr. Kyhl's BBS number in an effort to prevent unauthorized use

 of its customers' long distance calling authorization codes by

 computer "hackers".  Mr. Cross is concerned that this type of

 blocking may be occurring in Michigan and that such practice

 could easily spread nationwide, thereby preventing access to

 BBSs by legitimate computer users.

 

 On November 7, 1988, the Informal Complaints Branch of the

 Common Carrier Bureau directed Teleconnect to investigate Mr.

 Cross' concerns and report the results of its investigation to

 this Commission.  Enclosed, for your information, is a copy of

 Teleconnect's December 7, 1988 report and its response to a

 similar complaint filed with this Commission by Mr. James

 Schmickley.  In accordance with the commission's rules, the

 carrier should have forwarded a copy of its December 7, 1988

 report to Mr. Cross at the same time this report was filed with

 the Commission.  I apologize for the delay in reporting the

 results of our investigation to your office.

 

 Teleconnect's report states that it is subject to fraudulent use

 of its network by individuals who use BBSs in order to

 unlawfully obtain personal authorization codes of consumers.

 Teleconnect also states that computer "hackers" employ a series

 of calling patterns to access a carrier's network in order to

 steal long distance services.  The report further states that

 Teleconnect monitors calling patterns on a 24 hour basis in an

 effort to control, and eliminate when possible, code abuse.  As

 a result of this monitoring, Teleconnect advises that its

 internal security staff detected repeated attempts to access the

 BBS numbers in question using multiple seven-digit access codes

 of legitimate Teleconnect customers.  These calling patterns,

 according to Teleconnect, clearly indicated that theft of

 telecommunications services was occurring.

 

 The report states that Teleconnect makes a decision to block

 calls when the estimated loss of revenue reaches at least $500.

 Teleconnect notes that blocking is only initiated when signs of

 "hacking" and other unauthorized usage are present, when local

 calls are attempted over its long distance network or when a

 customer or other carrier has requested blocking of a certain

 number.  Teleconnect maintains that blocking is in compliance

 with the provisions of Section A.20.a.04 of Teleconnect's Tariff

 F.C.C. No. #3 which provides that service may be refused or

 disconnected without prior notice by Teleconnect for fraudulent

 unauthorized use.  The report also states that Teleconnect

 customers whose authorizations codes have been fraudulently used

 are immediately notified of such unauthorized use and are issued

 new access codes.  Teleconnect further states that while an

 investigation is pending, customers are given instructions on

 how to utilize an alternative carrier's network by using "10XXX"

 carrier codes to access interstate or intrastate communications

 until blocking can be safely lifted.

 

 Teleconnect maintains that although its tariff does not require

 prior notice to the number targeted to be blocked, it does, in

 the case of a BBS, attempt to identify and contact the Systems

 Operator (SysOp), since the SysOp will often be able to assist

 in the apprehension of an unauthorized user.  The report states

 that with regard to Mr. Kyle's Iowa BBS, Teleconnect was unable

 to identify Mr. Kyle as the owner of the targeted number because

 the number was unlisted and Mr. Kyhl's local carrier was not

 authorized to and did not release any information to Teleconnect

 by which identification could be made.  The report also states

 that Teleconnect attempted to directly access the BBS to

 determine the identity of the owner but was unable to do so

 because its software was incompatible with the BBS.

 

 Teleconnect states that its actions are not discriminatory to

 BBSs and states that it currently provides access to literally

 hundreds of BBSs around the country.  The report also states

 that Teleconnect's policy to block when unauthorized use is

 detected is employed whether or not such use involves a BBS.

 Teleconnect advises that when an investigation is concluded or

 when a complaint is received concerning the blocking, the

 blocking will be lifted, as in the case of the Iowa BBS.

 However, Teleconnect notes that blocking will be reinstated if

 illegal "hacking" recurs.

 

 Teleconnect advises that it currently has no ongoing

 investigations within the State of Michigan and therefore, is

 not presently blocking any BBSs in Michigan.  However,

 Teleconnect states that it is honoring the request of other

 carriers and customers to block access to certain numbers.

 

 The Branch has reviewed the file on this case.  In accordance

 with the Commission's rules for informal complaints it appears

 that the carrier's report is responsive to our Notice.

 Therefore, the Branch, on its own motion, is not prepared to

 recommend that the Commission take further action regarding this

 matter.  --------

 

 This letter leaves me with a ton of questions.  First, lets be

 fair to Teleconnect.  Long distance carriers are being robbed of

 hundreds of thousands of dollars annually by "hackers" and must

 do something to prevent it.  However, call blocking is NOT going

 to stop it.  The "hacker" still has access to the carrier

 network and will simply start calling other numbers until that

 number, too, is blocked, then go on to the next.  The answer is

 to identify the "hacker" and put him out of business.

 Teleconnect is taking a cheap, quick fix approach that does

 nothing to solve the problem, and hurts the phone users as a

 whole.

 

 They claim that their customers are able to use other networks

 to complete their calls if the number is being blocked.  What if

 other networks decide to use Teleconnect's approach?  You would

 be forced to not only keep an index of those numbers you call,

 but also the long distance carrier that will let you call it!

 Maybe everyone will block that number, then what will you do?

 What if AT&T decided to block calls?  Do they have this right

 too?

 

 And how do you find out if the number is being blocked?  In the

 case of Mr. Kyhl's BBS, callers were given a recording that

 stated the number was not in service.  It made NO mention that

 the call was blocked, and the caller would assume the service

 was disconnect.  While trying to investigate why his calls were

 not going through, Mr. James Schmickley placed several calls to

 Teleconnect before they finally admitted the calls were being

 blocked!  Only after repeated calls to Teleconnect was the

 blocking lifted.  It should also be noted that Mr. Kyhl's bbs is

 not a pirate bbs, and has been listed in a major computer

 magazine as one of the best bbs's in the country.

 

 As mentioned before, MBT will work with the long distance

 carriers to find these "hackers".  I assume that the other local

 carriers would do the same.  I do not understand why Teleconnect

 could not get help in obtaining Mr. Kyhl's address.  It is true

 the phone company will not give out this information, but WILL

 contact the customer to inform him that someone needs to contact

 him about possible fraud involving his phone line.  If this

 policy is not being used, maybe the FCC should look into it.

 

 Call blocking is not restricted to BBSs, according to

 Teleconnect.  They will block any number that reaches a $500

 fraud loss.  Lets say you ran a computer mail order business and

 didn't want to invest in a WATTS line.  Why should an honest

 businessman be penalized because someone else is breaking the

 law?  It could cost him far more the $500 from loss of sales

 because of Teleconnect's blocking policy.

 

 Teleconnect also claims that "they are honoring the request of

 other carriers and customers to block access to certain

 numbers".  Again, MBT also has these rules.  But they pertain to

 blocking numbers to "certain numbers" such as dial-a-porn

 services, and many 900- numbers.  What customer would ever

 request that Teleconnect block incoming calls to his phone?

 

 And it is an insult to my intelligence for Teleconnect to claim

 they could not log on to Mr. Kyhl's BBS.  Do they mean to say

 that with hundreds of thousands of dollars in computer

 equipment, well trained technicians, and easy access to phone

 lines, that they can't log on to a simple IBM bbs?  Meanwhile,

 here I sit with a $50 Atari 800xl and $30 Atari modem and I have

 no problem at all accessing Mr. Kyhl's bbs!  What's worse, the

 FCC (the agency in charge of regulating data transmission

 equipment), bought this line too!  Incredible!!!

 

 And finally, I must admit I don't have the faintest idea what

 Section A.20.a.04 of Teleconnect's Tariff F.C.C. No. 3 states,

 Walk into your local library and ask for this information and

 you get a blank look from the librarian.  I know, I tried!

 However, MBT also has similar rules in their tariffs.

 Teleconnect claims that the F.C.C. tariff claims that "service

 may be refused or disconnected without prior notice by

 Teleconnect for fraudulent, unauthorized use".  This rule, as

 applied to MBT, pertains ONLY to the subscriber.  If an MBT

 customer were caught illegally using their phone system then MBT

 has the right to disconnect their service.  If a Teleconnect

 user wishes to call a blocked number, and does so legally, how

 can Teleconnect refuse use to give them service?  This appears

 to violate the very same tarriff they claim gives them the right

 to block calls!

 

 I have a few simple answers to these questions.  I plan, once

 again, to send out letters to the appropriate agencies and

 government representatives, but I doubt they will go anywhere

 without a mass letter writing campaign from all of you.  First,

 order that long distance companies may not block calls without

 the consent of the customer being blocked.  Every chance should

 be given to him to assist in identifying the "hacker", and he

 should not be penalized for other people's crimes.  There should

 also be an agency designated to handle appeals if call blocking

 is set up on their line.  Currently, there is no agency, public

 service commission, or government office (except the FCC) that

 you can complain to, and from my experience trying to get

 information on call blocking I seriously doubt that they will

 assist the customer.

 

 Next, order the local phone carriers to fully assist and give

 information to the long distance companies that will help

 identify illegal users of their systems.  Finally, order the

 Secret Service to investigate illegal use of long distance

 access codes in the same manner that they investigate credit

 card theft.  These two crimes go hand in hand.  Stiff fines and

 penalties should be made mandatory for those caught stealing

 long distance services.

 

 If you would like further information, or just want to discuss

 this, I am available on Genie (G.Cross) and CompuServe

 (75046,267).  Also, you can reach me on my bbs (FACTS,

 313-736-4544).  Only with your help can we put a stop to call

 blocking before it gets too far out of hand.

 

                 >--------=====END=====--------<