🚀 go-pugleaf

From: Moderator <Telecom-REQUEST@MIT-XX.ARPA>

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 <Geoff@SRI-CSL.ARPA>

	
				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]