*******************************************************
* 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=====--------<