Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Newsgroups: fa.telecom Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #200 Message-ID: <8144@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Thu, 13-Jun-85 20:32:21 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8144 Posted: Thu Jun 13 20:32:21 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Jun-85 06:00:11 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 212 From: Moderator TELECOM Digest Thursday, June 13, 1985 7:28PM Volume 4, Issue 200 Today's Topics: Cellular Roaming Problems (resolution). TELECOM Digest V4 #200 - Telephone Harassment - Revisited [Thanks to SRA@XX we are running with new Digest software. Bugs to TELECOM-REQUEST@MIT-XX. Note, TELECOM@XX and TELECOM-REQUEST@XX are now the official addresses of TELECOM. Mail to BBNCCA will be forwarded back here. --JSol] ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: ihnp4!pesnta!peora!jer@Berkeley Date: Wednesday, 12 Jun 1985 16:52-EDT To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA Subject: Re: Cellular phones and confidentiality In-reply-to: USENET article <8055@ucbvax.ARPA> Aside from the fact that you CAN allegedly monitor cellular telephone communications, is it legal to do so? It had been my understanding that a "Secrecy of Communications Act" existed which made it illegal to monitor any radio communications other than those in the commercial and amateur radio bands. (The exact wording probably restricted it further, since I first heard of it in reference to the alleged illegality of monitoring subsidiary carrier broadcasts from commercial radio stations.) -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Gnyx gb gur fhayvtug, pnyyre..." ---------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jun 1985 08:59-PDT Subject: Cellular Roaming Problems (resolution). From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Before the FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washigton, D.C. 20554 In re ) ) NEW ORLEANS CGSA, INC. ) File No. 27012-CL-C-84 Licensee of Domestic Cellular ) Radio Telecommunications Service ) Station KNKA 224, at New Orleans, ) Louisiana TO: Chief, Common Carrier Bureau REPLY TO EMERGENCY PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE RELIEF FROM LICENSEE RULE VIOLATION IN REFUSING TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO ROAMERS -------------------------- New Orleans CGSA, Inc. and BellSouth Mobility Inc ( "BMI"), parent corporation of New Orleans CGSA, Inc. (collectively, "Respondents"), by their attorneys, hereby submit their response to the above-styled Emergency ptition filed by or on behalf of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow and Dwight F. Hare ( collectively, "Petitioners") in this matter, dated May 17, 1985. Respondents respectfully submit that, contrary to the assertions of the Petitioners, there has been no "willful refusal" to provide them with roamer service on the New Orleans cellular system, and no "willful violation"" of Section 22.911(b) of the Commission's Rules. When Mr. Goodfellow contacted BMI seeking to arrange for roamer service in New Orleans, he was correctly informed by both a customer service representative and by Mr. Tony Walker that roamer service (as it is presently conceived, i.e., via credit card or automatic roaming intercarrier agreements) was not available in New Orleans because of state regulatory considerations arising out of the currently applicable tariffs adopted by the Louisiana Public Service Commission governing the provision of cellular service in New Orleans. Implementig a separate roamer service offering is a vastly complex undertaking and until very recently the various technical, engineering, billig and administrative difficulties combined to frustrate the development of the mechanisms necessary to support the provision of roamer service as a separate and distinct category of service offering. Only within the past several weeks have enough of these complicated billing, administrative and other hurdles been overcome by BMI and some other cellular system operators so as to permit BMI to begin executing intercarrier roamer service agreements and implementing separate roamer service offerings in its various cellular systems. Many other carriers around the country are still unable to provide or support such separate roamer service. Back when the New Orleans cellular system became operational and the tariffs relating thereto were filed and accepted by the Louisiana Public Service Commission, these problems had not been resolved and the cellular industry had not developed to the point where the manner in which roamer service would ultimately be provided could be adequately determined. As a result, the presently applicable tariffs in New Orleans make no provision for roamer service as a separate category from regular home subscriber service. Mr. Walker also correctly informed Mr. Goodfellow that revisions to the applicable tariffs were being prepared and were expected to be filed soon. Although the exact date of the projected filing of these tariff revisions and their proposed effective date were not known at the time of Mr. Walker's conversation with Mr. Goodfellow, these tariff revisions were in fact filed with the Louisiana Public Service Commission on May 21, 1985, and are proposed to become ef fective on June 2, 1985. In any event, as an interim solution in an effort to accomodate the petitioners' desire to obtain cellular service in New Orleans while remaining in compliance with the applicable tariffs, Mr. Walker offered to arrange for service to be provided to Petitioners essentially as if they were regular home subscribers for the one month minimum period prescribed in the tariff. Mr. Walker even offered to help arrange any reprogramming of the Petitioners' cellular radiotelephone units which might be necessary. As the foregoing clearly demonstrates, there has been no "willful" or "absolute" refusal by Respondents to provide service to the Petitioners on the New Orleans cellular system. Respondents offered and remained willing to provide such service to Petitioners in a manner which complies with state law and applicable tariffs. Thus, there has been no violation, willful or otherwise, of the Commission's Rules. Furthemore, Respondents have been informed by the Louisiana Public Service Commission ("LPSC" that the revised tariffs filed by Respondents providing for a separate roamer service offering have been accepted, to become effective June 2, 1985. Respondents have asked the LPSC to advance the effective date of the revised tariffs to May 25, 1985, and have been informed that the LPSC has agreed to that request. Written confirmation of the acceptance of the earlier effective date is expected from the LPSC shortly and will be filed with the Commission in this matter under separate cover. Therefore, roamer service can be provided to the ptitioners in accordance with the revised tariffs during the time period requested. As a result of these developments, the Emergency Petition is moot. For the reasons set forth above, the Petitioners are not entitled to any of the relief sought in the and foresaid Emergency Petition, and such petition should be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, NEW ORLEANS CGSA, INC. BELLSOUTH MOBILITY INC BY:_____________________ Martin C. Ruegsegger BellSouth Mobility Inc. 2030 Powers Ferry Road Suite 500 ________________________ Atlanta, Georgia 30339 D. Scott Stenhouse (404) 951-3600 Attorneys for Respondents Dated: May 23, 1985 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jun 85 09:41:18 PDT (Thursday) Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #200 - Telephone Harassment - Revisited From: Cottriel.ES@Xerox.ARPA Don, If your friend's local loop terminates in an PAC-TEL ESS office, (i.e. a computer driven Electronic Switch as opposed to a mechanical switching arrangement), and given the aptitude of the parties involved, it is entirely feasable that somebody knows the architecture of that switch, and could therefore ~create~ phony calls, by merely telling the switch to make the call. This could be done from anywhere, if the person or persons involved, knew enough about Pac-Tel's network architecture. It's even more feasable, that no calls were ever actually made, and the bogus billing reflects a simple data base compromise by the parties in question. One way to gather evidence that your friend did not make these calls, is to order a second phone service. The second service should be used in place of the first for his/her daily requirements for phone service. Have him order it under an assumed name and make sure it's unlisted. Then short out the pair on the old service and leave it that way for whatever period of time is necessary to prove that no use could possibly have been originated from your friends house. If your friend starts seeing bogus charges on the new line, then that should indicate to PAC-TEL that somewhere in their system, they have a few holes, and somebody found them. Of course, they already know this, but they can't admit it because it would create mass unrest with all of their clients. No computer system is 100% secure! (But that's another subject...for another day...) Good-luck, John ---------------------------------------------------------------- [End of TELECOM Digest]