From telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Sat Nov 3 16:08:57 1990
Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
id AA07691; Sat, 3 Nov 90 16:08:30 EST
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 90 15:09:02 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
To: ptownson@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Telecom Blocking
Message-Id: <9011031509.aa12657@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
Status: R
Received: from zeus.unomaha.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01401;
22 Oct 90 18:51 CDT
Date: 22 Oct 90 18:26:00 CDT
From: JOHN WINSLADE <winslade@zeus.unomaha.edu>
Subject: wilson-2.msg
To: telecom <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Message-ID: <9010221851.aa01401@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
Message No. 136 was left on 09-06-88 22:42 <PUBLIC> <RECEIVED>
To....... : Jim Schmickley
From..... : Bruce Wilson
Subject.. : TELECONNECT
See also message number 118.
Message Area #2 "Open Discussion"
Having now read BLOCKER.DOC and BLOCKER2.TXT, I'll probably stop over
at the Utilities Board offices to take a look at the actual file, if
I can. In the meantime, your attention is directed to Section 477.6,
Code of Iowa:
CHAPTER 477
TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE LINES AND COMPANIES
***
477.6 - Delay - willful error - revealing contents.
Any person employed in transmitting messages by
telegraph or telephone must do so with fidelity and
without unreasonable delay, and if anyone willfully
fails thus to transmit them, or intentionally transmits
a message erroneously, or makes known the contents
of any message sent or received to any person except
the person to whom it is addressed, or such person's
agent or attorney, or willfully or wrongly takes or
receives any telegraph or telephone message, the per-
son is guilty of a simple misdemeanor.
Not being aware of it, I don't suppose you've considered asking the
Linn County Attorney to prosecute Teleconnect under this provision.
That seems to be the proper venue, by virtue of Teleconnect having
its headquarters there and the "blocking" presumably having taken
place there or at the direction of company personnel working out of
its Cedar Rapids headquarters. I didn't see anything in the Chapter
which leaves it to the Utilities Board to initiate a prosecution.
This Code provision, in one form or another, has apparently been part of the
law of Iowa since the Code of 1873. However, the provision we're concerned
with doesn't seem to have ever been tested in court. If it was, it never got
as far as a published appellate court decision. The only Iowa case dealing
with this section at all is an 1880 case dealing with the disclosure
provision; and in that case the telegraph operator had been subpoenaed into
cort and ordered to testify and produce copies of telegrams.
Title 47, US Code (the Communications Act), also has some seemingly pertinent
provisions at sections 201, 202, 206, and 207.
Received: from zeus.unomaha.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19826;
22 Oct 90 19:14 CDT
Date: 22 Oct 90 18:22:00 CDT
From: JOHN WINSLADE <winslade@zeus.unomaha.edu>
Subject: Sue W's files
To: telecom <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Message-ID: <9010221915.aa19826@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
In the next several messages, I am sending the raw text files that would
not pass through yesterday. The subjects will be the original file names.
Good Day! JSW
Received: from zeus.unomaha.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19826;
22 Oct 90 19:15 CDT
Date: 22 Oct 90 18:23:00 CDT
From: JOHN WINSLADE <winslade@zeus.unomaha.edu>
Subject: blocking.doc
To: telecom <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Message-ID: <9010221915.aa19826@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
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'?"
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
'emergengy' 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.
ONCE MORE THROUGH THE DO-LOOP, THEN EXIT. The Utilities Board Staff went
through the same motions again, and came to the same conclusion, again.
Essentially, the staff concluded that, because Teleconnect insisted that it
had evidence to justify its actions, but that evidence was competition-
sensitive and could not be revealed, the staff would have to "take
Teleconnect's word for it" and uphold the company's actions.
At this point it was painfully obvious that the staff of the Utilities
Board was more than willing to buy any vapor-ware Teleconnect offered them.
The only way to get the issue out of the staff's hands and before the Iowa
State Utilities Board was to request a formal hearing. The request was filed.
FORMAL HEARING ORDERED. On November 2, 1988, the Board ordered that the
complaint be docketed for a formal hearing. After four months, it was acknow-
ledged that the "blocking" issue had sufficient substance to merit a hearing.
As of this date (November 15, 1988), the case has not been assigned to an
Administrative Law Judge, nor has a hearing date been set.
THE SECOND FRONT OPENS. A few months ago, we were able to verify that
Teleconnect was blocking interstate (Iowa to Illinois, in this case) calls,
and a complaint was filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
In late October, the FCC informed Teleconnect of the complaint, and ordered
Teleconnect to respond.
While it appears that this also could be a slow process, it is expected
that the FCC will much more responsive that the staff of the Iowa Board, for
whom this was a very new issue. In addition, Congressman Tom Tauke has
expressed his interest in the matter. Mr. Tauke, representing the Second
District of Iowa (including Cedar Rapids), is a member of the House
Telecommunications Subcommittee, and was recently reelected for a sixth term.
Recently, we have been able to verify that Teleconnect is blocking two
other eastern BBS lines. It might be possible to use these verifications to
establish a pattern to escalate the FCC complaint to formal complaint status.
STATUS. And now, as of November 15, 1988, here's where we are:
We are starting to prepare questions for an interrogatory to Teleconnect
for the Iowa hearing. Finally, after six months, we finally have hopes of
getting straight answers (or even any answer) to questions on blocking. We
will try to keep you informed (through BBSs, etc.) about the hearing date, as
soon as it is scheduled, and other developments.
We are also beginning to run up some expenses, and need the help of
concerned groups and individuals in defraying expenses in this fight for
communications freedom. An expense fund has been authorized by Hawkeye PC,
and will be administered by the treasurer. Contributions are requested to be
sent to: Hawkeye PC Users' Group, Anti-Blocking Expense Fund, c/o Pat Alden,
Treasurer, 840 Maggard, Iowa City, Iowa 52240.
The complaint on the interstate aspect of the blocking problem is just
beginning to slowly wend its way through the FCC.
Teleconnect has effectively completed its merger. Now, it is a major
component of a new company, Telecom*USA, which is the fourth largest American
long-distance company. This company now has long-distance operations in over
half of the states plus the District of Columbia.
Curt Kyhl, whose Stock Exchange BBS was blocked by Teleconnect for ten
months (June 1987 to April 1988) even though they didn't even know his name,
has accepted a new business opportunity and moved to Des Moines. Curt is
now operating his excellent BBS at (515) 226-0680.
And, in an unexpected development, Teleconnect Vice President for
Customer Service, Dan Rogers, has requested an opportunity to discuss the
company's "blocking policy". He is scheduled to do so at Hawkeye PC's
November 28th meeting in Iowa City.
UPDATE, January 4, 1989:
Dan Rogers addressed Hawkeye PC in Iowa City on Nov. 28th. To summarize,
the assembled members did NOT accept Teleconnect's explanation that blocking
was necessary to protect revenues for the good of all their customers. The
assembled group included professional people, university students, and four
Sysops, Ben Blackstock, Al Chapman, John Friel III (author of QModem), and
John Oren. It appeared Dan Rogers was impressed by the fact that this was
not a group of hackers (a term which Teleconnect had been bandying about
rather freely.) The high point of the evening was an eloquent sermon
delivered by John Oren, in which he pointed that the idea of "the greater good
of all" to the disadvantage of individuals did not work for Immanuel Kant, and
it certainly wasn't going to play for Teleconnect.
On December 19th, Bruce Wilson and I participated in a pre-hearing
conference before an administrative law judge in Des Moines as the initial
step in the formal complaint procedure with the Iowa Utilities Board. Casey
Mahon, Teleconnect's senior vice president and general counsel, represented
the company. Curt Kyhl, Sysop of the Stock Exchange BBS, attended as a very
interested observer. The judge gave instructions to the attorneys to reduce
the significant points of the case to writing and report back to him on Jan.
18th. He also suggested that a rules-making procedure would be in order to
establish rules by which the Utilities Board could decide any future cases of
this type which it might encounter. Bruce Wilson had already prepared a
rules-making petition for filing at a later time. (The rules-making petition
will be filed as soon as this complaint is resolved.)
Following the conference, Bruce Wilson, Casey Mahon, Curt Kyhl, and I met
informally and discussed possible resolution of the complaint. There is a
reasonable expectation of reaching an "out of court" resolution of the issue
without compromising the principles involved. Regrettably, however, nothing
further along the line of a settlement has occurred in the ensuing two weeks.
On December 22nd, I set up my computer in the offices of Teleconnect,
and demonstrated communication via modem to Dan Rogers and some of his
security staff. The intent was to make those people much more knowledgable
of modems and BBSs, and they seemed to be genuinely impressed by the
professional quality of the boards I called. We also had an extensive
discussion on the high standards, caller verification, and self-regulation
practiced by the Sysops.
Meanwhile, in Washington, Teleconnect's D.C. law firm had replied to the
FCC on the interstate blocking complaint I had filed. The response was,
unfortunately, a rehash of the same generalizations and pleas of "revenue
loss" which they had submitted to the Iowa Utilities Board. The FCC has not
acted yet, but there is some indication that they recognize that they have
never before received a complaint of this type, and it could become a
precedent setter to some extent.
And, the situation is now receiving national publicity. Senior Editor
Art Brodsky of "Communications Daily" read about it on a BBS, and contacted me
for more information, as well as checking with the FCC. He wrote an excellent
article which was published on December 16th. Dana Blankenhorn picked up on
Mr. Brodsky's article and published an item in NEWS BYTES, an on-line service
of The Source. It appears now that other publications will also pick up the
story.
Meanwhile, we are preparing to continue with the formal hearing before
the Iowa Utilities Board's administrative law judge.
Received: from zeus.unomaha.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29299;
22 Oct 90 19:17 CDT
Date: 22 Oct 90 18:24:00 CDT
From: JOHN WINSLADE <winslade@zeus.unomaha.edu>
Subject: bwletter.txt
To: telecom <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Message-ID: <9010221917.aa29299@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
Bruce L. Wilson
Attorney at Law
677 - 61st Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50312
(515) 277-4904 (voice)
(515) 280-9107 (data)
June 26, 1988
Mr. Arnold H. Garson
Managing Editor
Des Moines Register
715 Locust Street
Des Moines, IA 50309
Re: "Electronic hotshots are suffering terminal addiction," by
Patrick Beach, illustration by Tom Weinman, page 1-T, Satur-
day, June 25, 1988,
Dear Mr. Garson:
Unfortunately for most users and operators of computer bul-
letin board systems, Mr. Beach, not being a computer user him-
self, wasn't able to thoroughly research his story before writing
it. I've spoken with Mr. Beach, who now realizes that he has
only seen the tip of a very large and diverse iceberg. Just as
the exposed portion of an iceberg can be deceiving, he was quite
mislead by his minimal exposure to today's computer bulletin
board systems.
Most bulletin board users and system operators are male, but
more and more women are becoming involved with computers and con-
currently with computer bulletin boards. One Des Moines area
board is operated by a mother and daughter, something which, if
not unique in the entire U.S., is quite uncommon.
Although it's not as evident around here as in other parts
of the country, attorneys have probably made the greatest use of
computer bulletin board systems of any profession. The American
Bar Association's ABA-net is a computer bulletin board system.
A seminar on computer bulletin boards was part of this
year's annual meeting of the Iowa State Bar Association.
There are systems operated by bar associations and indivi-
dual lawyers all over the country and a number of articles about
them have appeared in the National Law Journal. Operators in-
clude DePaul University College of Law, the Houston North Bar
Association, and the Lawyers' Microcomputer User Group (LawMUG)
in Chicago, whose was the first lawyers' computer bulletin board
system in the country.
Many systems are operated by governmental agencies at both
the state and Federal level. The Iowa Department of General Ser-
vices operates one. The U.S. Department of Education operates
one with a nation-wide toll-free number for educators to communi-
cate with each other.
At least one newspaper operates a bulletin board, as shown
by the following message, posted on another system:
Date: 06-24-88 (02:53) Number: 545
To: ALL Refer#: 550
From: DAVID LEVINSON Read: (N/A)
Subj: HOWDY Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
If you have an urge to tell Southern Californians a
thing or two -- advice on earthquakes, voting in Novem-
ber as well as more laid-back topics is always welcome
-- call The Electric Newspaper at 213-432-3592. We're
PC Pursuitable at 1200 baud. We run PC Board 12.1/D
but don't have much in the way of files. Our primary
interest is letters to the editor and freelance arti-
cles for our op-ed page at the Long Beach Press-Tele-
gram, a Knight-Ridder newspaper (like the Miami Herald,
but there is a good deal less of us).
There are literally thousands of computer bulletin board
systems scattered across the country. Some are organized in net-
works which exchange messages, allowing someone in Des Moines to
engage in roundtable discussions with others in all parts of the
country by entering his or her message on the local board, for
example.
Boards in over 25 major U.S. cities can be called cheaply
and directly from Des Moines by using a service of Telenet called
PC Pursuit. For a flat fee of $25 a month, Telenet allows its
data lines to be used at night and on weekends, when they'd
otherwise be idle.
All it takes is a local call to connect to Telenet and
through it to Chicago, Boston, Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles, Port-
land, New York City, DC, or any other "PC Pursuitable" city.
Bulletin board systems serve as a means of distribution for
high-quality computer programming, comparable to anything found
on the shelves of computer stores and in some cases superior to
it. The concept is known as "shareware," which enables program-
mers to inexpensively distribute their work and users to "try
before you buy."
Shareware programs include spreadsheets comparable to Lotus
1-2-3, data base management programs comparable to DBase III, and
word processing programs comparable to WordPerfect, all commer-
cial programs retailing for hundreds of dollars.
Authors of shareware programs transmit (upload) them to the
bulletin boards. Board users receive (download) them, use them,
and only send a nominal payment if they choose to keep and con-
tinue to use them beyond the trial period.
Unlike that to which Mr. Beach was exposed, the vast majo-
rity of computer bulletin boards do not permit the use of any-
thing but verifiable real names. Some use elaborate procedures
to assure the operator that a user is, in fact, who he or she
claims to be.
Even if the use of "handles" is permitted, the exchange of
copies of commercial software or information about illegal or
questionable activities is not.
The operators of these systems may have thousands of their
own dollars invested in the hardware and software. They spend
many hours in the operation and maintenance of their systems and
are not about to risk losing it all.
A number of system operators showed their concern on May 7
by attending a conference in Chicago on the legal aspects of run-
ning and using their systems. Paul Bernstein, founder of LawMUG,
summarized the conference on the LawMUG board and in its online
newsletter:
On Saturday, May 7, 1988, The John Marshall Law
School Center for Informatics Law and LAWMUG co-spon-
sored a conference for electronic bulletin board opera-
tors to examine possible liability exposure in opera-
ting a board. People traveled from as far as Washing-
ton, DC, Arizona, Iowa, Michigan, Indiana, and Tennes-
see, for the day-long conference held at the Law School
in Chicago.
The Center is exploring the possibility of serving
as a law clinic resource for sysops with specific legal
questions concerning the operation of their boards.
It was founded at The John Marshall Law School in
1983. It examines information and communications tech-
nologies in the context of our legal system, with em-
phasis on the protection of personal privacy and human
dignity in today's information-oriented environment.
Professor Trubow has been professor of law at The
John Marshall Law School since 1976 and is Director of
the Center. He teaches torts and seminars on privacy,
computer law, and information law and policy. He was
general counsel from 1974-76 to the Committee on the
Right of Privacy, Executive Office of the President.
Professor Trubow and Paul Bernstein, Esq., began
the conference with an overview of the principal legal
problems facing sysops. He presented an examination of
federal and state civil law and regulation.
Cathy Pilkington, Esq., Counsel to the Inspector
General, Illinois Department of Public Aid, spoke on
computer crime. Ms. Pilkington, a principal drafter of
Illinois' new Computer Crime Prevention Law, frequently
prosecutes cases of computer abuse.
A panel of attorneys and system operators presen-
ted alternative views on how "sysops" should conduct
their systems to minimize liability exposure in the
afternoon. Professor Trubow moderated the discussion
and posed questions for the panelists to consider.
Dan Buda, operator of the board sponsored by the local chap-
ter of the First Osborne (user) Group (FOG), Jim Borchard, opera-
tor of the Iowa DGS board, and I attended this conference.
I suggest you arrange to provide Mr. Beach with an IBM or
IBM-compatible personal computer, modem, and a subscription to PC
Pursuit (or access to a nation-wide WATS line), so that he can
fully explore the range of resources provided by bulletin board
systems and develop a more accurate image of what they are. I
would be happy to provide a copy of an excellent shareware com-
munications program, directories of bulletin board phone numbers,
and technical advice to get him started. (The commercial com-
munications programs are a major waste of money.)
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Wilson
Received: from zeus.unomaha.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25979;
22 Oct 90 19:34 CDT
Date: 22 Oct 90 18:25:00 CDT
From: JOHN WINSLADE <winslade@zeus.unomaha.edu>
Subject: iowa.sto
To: telecom <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Message-ID: <9010221934.aa25979@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
Jim:
Here's what I wrote about your discussions with Teleconnect.
Dana Blankenhorn
PHONE COMPANIES are trying to crack down on pirate BBS systems,
and getting on legitimate users' nerves. An informal complaint
before the FCC asks it to decide basic issues involving the
rights of phone companies to refuse to serve Bulletin Board
Systems (BBSs). James Schmickley of Cedar Rapids, Iowa asked for
the ruling after Teleconnect of Cedar Rapids, a long-distance
carrier now owned by SouthernNet of Atlanta, blocked his call to
a Waterloo BBS in April. Teleconnect's disconnect was based on
what General Counsel Casey Mahon called "its good-faith belief
that theft of Teleconnect services was being accomplished through
misuse of the number by parties unknown to Teleconnect." The
threat -- that all BBS operators would be refused service because
hackers use their systems to commit crimes -- needed to be
addressed, thought Schmickley.
Schmickley told the Hotline his own case may be on its way to a
solution. "We had a pre-hearing conference before an
administrative law judge in Des Moines this past Monday, the
19th." Schmickley is represented by Bruce Wilson, a former Iowa
board staff member, a lawyer, and co-SYSOP of the Cirus
Cybernetics board in Des Moines. Mahon represented Teleconnect.
The judge asked for a list of facts by January 18, and asked
the parties to talk things over. It looks now, Schmickley adds,
"like we'll be able to talk this out." Teleconnect blocks on The
Stock Exchange and Computer Direct in Barrington, IL, another
reputable board Schmickley had been blocked from calling, were
removed.
"I know I can go through AT&T," and make calls Teleconnect
won't, Schmickley concludes. "I'm an engineer, I'm not totally
stupid. But what kind of games are we going to play -- I refuse
to operate that way." God bless you, Jim Schmickley.
NOTE: This is a news story written by Dana Blankenhorn for NEWS
BYTES, an on-line news service of The Source.
Received: from zeus.unomaha.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27819;
22 Oct 90 20:01 CDT
Date: 22 Oct 90 18:25:00 CDT
From: JOHN WINSLADE <winslade@zeus.unomaha.edu>
Subject: flatt-01.txt
To: telecom <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Message-ID: <9010222001.aa27819@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
Fron Andy Flatt's NightHawk BBS, Bulletin #7, 9-7-88
========================================================
Why YOU should be concerned with Teleconnect's long-distance policies, or,
"Why, in my view, Teleconnect is scum".
If you use Teleconnect for your long-distance calls, OR if you give a damn
about the First Amendment, read on. It's only a couple screens long.
Basically, the short version of the story is: Teleconnect has admitted to
blocking calls through its system to certain BBS systems because at least once
a hacker has used an unauthorized access code to call those systems. (The long
version of all this is contained in BLOCKERS.ARC and BLOCKER2.ARC; download
these for specifics on the case.)
"So what?" you may be saying. Think about it. For reasons that Teleconnect
only has to justify to themselves, they decided to prohibit certain calls from
being placed through their system, on the grounds that SOME calls have at one
time been made fraudulently.
Specifically, one or more people had (according to Teleconnect) figured out how
to hack a seven-digit "access code" and used it to call various BBSs. One of
these was Curt Kyhl's Stock Exchange BBS in Waterloo. So, in response to the
fraud, Teleconnect took the easy way out. Rather than try to identify the
fraudulent caller, and (and this is the big one) RATHER THAN COOPERATE WITH THE
SYSOP in finding the caller, they simply told their switch not to complete ANY
calls to the number. And, they gave the caller a recording saying "this is a
local call from your dialing area". (Yeah, sure. They won't even ADMIT they
refuse to place the call, causing confusion to the caller.)
AND, Teleconnect NEVER even told Curt Kyhl that they were taking this action.
In fact, they have admitted that they never even completed a CALL to the
number, to see whose number it was they were blocking!!
So, here we have a "common carrier", a utility allegedly regulated by the ICC,
DECIDING FOR ITSELF who it will place calls to. In this case, it was a BBS
they blocked calls to. (In Teleconnect's eyes, people who call "computer
billboards" [their words] are all hackers, anyway.) But do they have the
right to prohibit free and uninhibited exchange of information between honest
parties?
And related to this whole argument is the question: Why is it BBSs have such a
strange reputation? Because we're esoteric? Nobody has much sympathy for
"computer geeks" with pale skin and green eyes, anyway, I guess.
But I tell ya what. If Teleconnect (just as arbitrarily) decided to block
calls to a pool hall, for whatever reason, would that be right? What if they
decided not to place a call to Mr. XXXXX because he worked for AT&T? Or
because he were black? But it was "just a BBS". So that's OK.
There's a dangerous precedent being set here, gang. Believe me, I do NOT
support toll fraud. It is wrong, and it is theft. And violators should be
punished. But dammit, Curt Kyhl and his BBS had NOTHING to do with the theft.
He should not have incoming calls restricted due to the actions of some
criminal third party.
And I think, on top of all this, Teleconnect's lack of cooperation with the
Commission, and to its customers who demanded an explanation (myself included)
of its blocking policies, stinks!
So, download BLOCKERS.ARC and BLOCKER2.ARC and read the specifics. If this
bothers you, then write that letter! But by God, don't take this sitting down.
I'm not a troublemaker or a hell-raiser, but this kind of power-wielding must
be stopped, and it's gonna take grass-roots resistance to make a dent.
At the very least, call Teleconnect toll-free at 1-800-REACH-US and ask for
Dan Rogers. Explain to him that you're a law-abiding, legal, legit person...
AND you call BBSs. And ask him to explain why and how they block calls. Make
him justify and explain their position to you. (They don't think many people
even KNOW about this policy!) Don't take a flunkie or a customer service type
for your answer; ask for Dan Rogers. Give 'em hell. And WRITE THAT LETTER!
We need political clout in this one, too.
Finally, if you have any comments or suggestions, leave an open message here.
(Have you ever gotten that recording about it being a local call, even when
it was not?)
Oh, and if you read this far, you get extra credit points for putting up with
me. Thanks!
Received: from zeus.unomaha.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27819;
22 Oct 90 20:01 CDT
Date: 22 Oct 90 18:25:00 CDT
From: JOHN WINSLADE <winslade@zeus.unomaha.edu>
Subject: gannett.bbs
To: telecom <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Message-ID: <9010222001.ab27819@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
This Bulletin Board is sponsored by the Gannett Co., Inc.
We operate 24 Hours a day, 7 days a week at (703)524-3982
For all Gannett/USA Today Employees, and other computer users.
The Gannett Information Center, the 23rd floor of Tower II.
Bulletin 1 - Upload Download Statistics. Just be fair.....
Bulletin 2 - A short message on current Board Procedures.
Bulletin 3 - You can now upload your resume for Gannett or USA Today
Bulletin 4 - Letter to our users.
Welcome to the Gannett Help Screen
As you are a new user, we will ask that you register before access
is granted. You will be able to look around the board on this first
call, register for access and leave a comment to the Sysop.
Gannett Co., Inc. callers can call Bob Ison at x6113 to be
granted immediate access. You will still need to register during
this first call.
Please leave comments to the Sysop concerning improvements you would
like to see on this system. All comments are appreciated.
Note! Now 20 Meg IBM XT for the Help Screen BBS...
Our system now consists of:
IBM PC/XT
Color Graphics Adapter/Monitor
One 20 Meg IBM Fixed Drive
Hayes 2400 Baud SmartModem
20 Megs
Online! Running PCBoard Software
24 hours a day..
7 days a week!
Received: from zeus.unomaha.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06094;
22 Oct 90 23:58 CDT
Date: 22 Oct 90 18:23:00 CDT
From: JOHN WINSLADE <winslade@zeus.unomaha.edu>
Subject: brodsky1.txt
To: telecom <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Message-ID: <9010222358.aa06094@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
COMMUNICATIONS DAILY Warren Publishing
The Authoritative News Service 43
of Electronic Communications Years of Excellence
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Service of Warren Publishing, Inc.
2115 Ward Court, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037. Phone: 202-872-9200
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1988 Vol. 8, No. 242
Today:
FCC ASKED TO SET COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARD BLOCKING: Ia. consumer argues Tele-
connect wasn't right in blocking board called with stolen number. Teleconnect
says blocking is necessary to cut losses. (P. 3)
Preventing Income Loss
----------------------
FCC ASKED TO CONSIDER BULLETIN-BOARD BLOCKING COMPLAINT
FCC has been asked to decide complaint that involves fundamental issues
surrounding nature of computer bulletin board (BBS) operations, ability of
carriers to protect themselves from theft, and when blocking of services is
appropriate.
Informal complaint was filed by James Schmickley, engineer with Rockwell
International in Cedar Rapids, Ia., who took the case to FCC after having been
rebuffed at Ia. Utilities Board. Case started in April when Schmickley tried
to call Stock Exchange bulletin board in Waterloo, Ia., and found call blocked
by Teleconnect, his long distance carrier. Teleconnect Gen. Counsel Casey
Mahon told Schmickley's attorney, Benjamin Blackstock, in April 28 letter that
company had blocked number to bulletin board "in its good-faith belief that
theft of Teleconnect services was being accomplished through misuse of the
number by parties unknown to Teleconnect."
Schmickley was advised to dial 10288, area code and local number or to
change long distance carrier. Mahon's letter didn't mention that 10288 is
equal access code for AT&T. (Mahon later disclosed that information in
correspondence to Ia. Utilities Board, which looked into issue.) Mahon added
that while Schmickley said Curtis Kyhl, system operator of Stock Exchange, is
responsible individual, "even reputable operators of computer bulletin boards
cannot always prevent 'hacking' by others." Teleconnect said it couldn't
determine identity of bulletin board operator.
Teleconnect kept block on for 10 months, telling Ia. Utilities Board in
July 29 letter that company "Had suffered substantial dollar losses as a
result of the theft of long distance services by means of computer 'hacking'
utilizing the computer billboard [sic] which is available to that number."
Mahon advised Utilities Board: A computer billboard can be used in other ways
to facilitate theft of long distance services." Board on Aug. 19 agreed with
Teleconnect, saying that company could block lines in emergency situation and
that carrier's response "appears to suggest that there was an emergency due to
revenue loss. The company chose to reduce the service to this one number by
blocking calls through its system."
Schmickley took same complaint to FCC Sept. 19, citing blocking not only
to Stock Exchange bulletin board, but also on interstate call Sept. 14 to
computer buying service bulletin board. He said question is whether carrier
has right to block bulletin board, which is a computer service, because of
other unrelated computer activities: "If they can do as they damn well
please, it's a serious threat to free communications." He said responses from
Teleconnect and Ia. regulators indicate lack of understanding of computer
communications. In Dec. 2 response to Schmickley, Teleconnect said it tried
to contact Stock Exchange bulletin board, but couldn't "because of software
incompatibility." He responded: "That's a crock." He noted that Stock
Exchange number had been published in June 1988 issue of Changing Times
magazine as "a good place to get started," and said Teleconnect had never
exhibited good-faith effort to identify source of problem.
Schmickley noted that first screen on Stock Exchange lists Kyhl as system
operator, so that fact should have been easy for Teleconnect to determine.
Number in Barrington, Ill., that Teleconnect blocked was to Computer Direct
Inc., which sells computer equipment. Printout of screens from Computer
Direct show that it has posted rules that include: (1) "NO [emphasis by
author] conversations involving Phreaking (defrauding the phone company)."
(2) "NO conversations involving defrauding any other Company." Conferences
include Christian Ethics discussion, and users are logged off with quotation
from Bible.
For Teleconnect, issue is protection of network and defense against
revenue losses. In Dec. 2 response to Schmickley's informal complaint,
company said blocking is required to prevent "fraudulent use of the network by
computer 'hackers.'" Its actions were "neither arbitrary nor wrong,"
Teleconnect said, noting that calls to bulletin boards at issue "exhibited
patterns which clearly indicated that theft of telecommunications services was
occurring." Teleconnect said it blocks calls "only when clear signs of
hacking and other unauthorized use are present." It said its regulations on
blocking are reasonable. Citing Carlin Communications v. Mountain Bell dial-
a-porn case, Teleconnect added that "carrier may institute blocking even if
the offending access is not illegal."
***********************************************
* The preceding article by Senior Editor
* Art Brodsky was reproduced by permission. *
***********************************************
Received: from zeus.unomaha.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27237;
23 Oct 90 2:41 CDT
Date: 22 Oct 90 18:24:00 CDT
From: JOHN WINSLADE <winslade@zeus.unomaha.edu>
Subject: chgtimes.doc
To: telecom <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Message-ID: <9010230241.aa27237@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
The following article about Computer bulletin
boards appeared in the June, 1988 issue of
The Kiplinger Magazine "CHANGING TIMES"
<<< Note: The STOCK EXCHANGE, listed in Waterloo, has been
relocated to Des Moines, Iowa (515-226-0680)
because SYSOP Curt Khyl has changed jobs.
ON YOUR COMPUTER
BULLETIN BOARDS
Computer bulletin boards get a bad rap. If you've never
explored one, they must seem b-o-r-i-n-g---a bunch of hacker nerds
earnestly arguing through their PCs the merits of Intel's 80386 chip
over Motorola's 68020 or engaged in other trivial pursuits. Too bad,
because for the computer owner the bulletin board (or BBS) is heaven
on earth---a quick source of thousands of software programs. All of
them yours for the asking. All of them free, or the next thing to it.
If these programs were just games or new ways to count the
number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, you could
dismiss the hundreds of BBSs. But ask yourself: If you (or your
college-bound child) needed a good writing program, would you rather
pay $360 for MultiMate or $250 for WordPerfect, or grab any one of
numerous full-feature writing programs from a bulletin board and pay
little or nothing? If you wanted to catalog your recipes or wines,
would you rather pay $400 for dBase III (and struggle with its
complexities) or grab PC-File from a BBS and accomplish the same,
gratis? The same goes for communications programs, spreadsheet
programs, investment programs, tax programs and any number of
utility programs that improve your computer's operation or add to
its friendliness.
WHAT YOU'LL NEED.
One special piece of hardware is necessary: a modem, the
device that allows your computer to talk to another computer via
telephone lines. Modems, which can be freestanding or installed
inside a computer, sell for $100 to $500, depending on their speed,
or baud rate. Avoid the cheapest modems, which operate at 300 bauds,
or 300 bits of data per minute. Buy a 1200-baud, or a 2400-baud if
you can, because the higher speeds save time and long-distance bills.
To run the modem, you'll need a communications program, too.
Some good ones, such as ProComm, are offered on bulletin boards.
So before spending more money, borrow a friend's communications
software, use it to call a BBS or two, and see whether a program
offered on one of them suits your needs. For most boards, you
should set communications parameters in the software to eight
data bits, one stop bit and not parity.
WHAT YOU'LL FIND.
Now you're ready, but how do they work? Most BBS cost
nothing to use. The programs themselves are free, too, although
some are what's called shareware---if you find the software useful,
you send a nominal sum to its creator and become a registered user.
Some flawed programs appear on the boards, but a great deal of what
you'll find is superior to commercial software and is regularly
updated. It's up to you to separate wheat from chaff.
You've got a friend when it comes to that task. Quality
control is just one of the duties performed by the SYSOPs--
-system operators---who monitor the contents of their bulletin
boards. They SYSOPs are generally computer enthusiasts who run
their BBSs on a nonprofit basis. Their ranks include programmers,
hobbyists and professional organizations that operate BBSs for
members and newcomers alike. Good SYSOPs are professional and
are often available for on-line chats. They also provide etiquette
guidelines---no pseudonyms, profanity or libel--to new users. Some
SYSOPs verify your identity and, if you disobey the rules, will
deny you access. A few charge annual membership fees in the $15
to $50 range.
Don't feel intimidated about plunging in. Most boards are
quite easy to use. They use menu-driven instructions and prompts.
It's a good idea to write down or print the main menu or exit
instructions, in case you get lost in a maze of commands. to
minimize download time and to pack all files associated with a
program together, boards squeeze them into an "archive" file that
carries the extension ".ARC." To unsqueeze and unbundle them, you'll
need a special program. The best of the lot---usually found under
the name PKX35A35.EXE---is available on most bulletin boards. Make
this the first program you transfer to your computer and save it.
The boards mentioned below are good places to get started
on your search for BBS gold. A few are exceptionally large general
-interest boards, and the others will appeal to investors and users
of financial software. Unless state otherwise, all are for IBM-style
personal computers.
THE MARKET, Potomac, Md. (301-299-8667). Its 20 directories
of files include sections on home finance (amortization, retirement
and real estate program), business logos, letters and sales-tracking
systems) and investment programs (stock valuation and tracking with
buy and sell signals). There are also utility programs for such
things as hard disks and keyboards. Don't look for games here.
INVESTOR'S ONLINE, Bellevue, Wash. (206-285-5359).
This service is devoted almost entirely to the stock market.
SYSOP Don Shepherdson says the board serves as in "idea exchange"
for investors. He also makes available 235 files for registered
users.
COMPUTERIZED INVESTING, Chicago (312-280-8764). Run by
a magazine published by the American Association of Individual
Investors, it offers more than 200 programs that emphasize investing,
portfolio management, valuation and amortization calculations and
investment analysis. There are separate libraries of files for
IBM, Apple, MacIntosh and Commodore users.
TAX ASSISTANCE, Arlington, VA (703-237-8430).
It's nicknames "Ask Roger," because Washington, D.C.,
CPA Roger Stanley answers questions about tax matters for his
registered users. Early in 1988 he put software on his BBS for
preparing federal, Maryland, Virginia and D.C. tax returns for 1987
(asking $25 to $50 for its use). There's loads of other free tax
and business software available on this superb BBS.
STOCK EXCHANGE, Waterloo, Iowa (319-236-0834).
Nearly 1,000 files are organized under ten general headings,
including a section devoted to financial applications for Lotus
spreadsheets. It also offers dozens of demonstration programs of
commercial financial software and more than 100 other finance and
data programs, including market averages and mutual fund rankings.
STOCKS 'N' SUCH, Madison, N.J. (201-377-2526).
It holds 17 file areas, including ones devoted to finance,
accounting, business and marketing. For a break, check out
the files on humor, music and color pictures. Despite the name,
there's something for everyone.
ROYALINK I, Westlake, Cal. (805-484-9343).
Here's a top-notch, general-interest BBS on the West Coast that
offers more than 900 files, divided into 16 categories, from games
to utilities.
The FILE CABINET, Philadelphia (215-678-9334).
Aptly names, it contains more than 7,700 files and has nine phone
lines to handle incoming calls. files are organized by the year of
their release. This BBS covers the entire range of computer software.
RAILROAD BBS, Long Island, N.Y. (516-741-6914).
Another enormous East Coast BBS, it offers more than 600 utility
programs, plus hundreds of others dealing with communications,
word processing,data-base management and computer languages.
But it's light on business and financial software. An the only
program we found relating to choo-choos was a game that lets you
control an imaginary model railroad layout.
For other BBSs, we found the most up-to-date list of boards
for users of IMB-style PCs on the BBS run by PC Magazine. Download,
or receive, its list (and numerous free utility programs) by calling
212-696-0360 on the East Coast or 415-598-9100 in the West. Apple
owners can get help finding a local BBS by calling the Apple user
group's hot line at 800-538-9696.
If wanderlust won't let you settle for a local BBS, a way
to avoid sky-high long-distance bills if Telenet's PC Pursuit
service. For a one-time registration fee of $25 plus $25 a month,
billed to your credit card, you can call bulletin boards in 25 major
cities during evenings and weekends. It takes longer to transfer
data using PC Pursuit, but you're paying only the flat fee. For
more information, call 800-835-3638 or dial the PC Pursuit BBS
at 800-835-3001.
One more caveat---if possible, disable call waiting while
you're on-line; otherwise, an incoming call will break your
connection with a BBS. Check with your local phone company to see
whether "cancel call waiting" is available.
A WAY TO TALK
How easily you can talk with computer bulletin boards hinges
in part on the software you use to do the talking. Expensive
communications program like Crosstalk and Smartcom, both of which
cost more than $200 but are often discounted, do the job well. Yet
why spend the money when there's ProComm, a "shareware" program
available on the boards? It costs you nothing to try and just $25
to become a registered user.
We gave version 2.42 of ProComm a torture test while
preparing the above item on bulletin boards, and we award it
high marks. It's slickly put together, with "exploding" screens
and sound effects. More to the point, it's a breeze to use.
The instructions occupy 106 pages when printed, but we got it up
and running without ever looking at them. When you seek to transfer
a file from a BBS to your computer, ProComm prompts you through the
steps---you couldn't ask for an easier way. And experienced
computer users can construct special files that automatically
log them on to particular boards or data bases they use regularly.
PC-Talk, the granddaddy of shareware communications programs,
now costs $100. ProComm goes it one better in cost, utility and
ease of use. You can find the program on numerous bulletin boards,
including Royalink I (see above) and ProComm's own BBS (314-449-9401).
Or register and obtain disks directly from Datastorm Technologies,
Box 1471, Columbia, Mo 65205, for $10/disk.
By Marshall Rens
Research: Joan Goldwasser
The Kiplinger Magazine
CHANGING TIMES
1729 H Street, N.W.
Washinbgton D.C. 20006
From telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Mon Nov 19 01:53:50 1990
Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
id AA16769; Mon, 19 Nov 90 01:53:38 EST
Resent-Message-Id: <9011190653.AA16769@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Received: from hoss.unl.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29602;
12 Nov 90 21:57 CST
Received: by hoss.unl.edu; Mon, 12 Nov 90 21:59:53 cst
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 90 21:59:53 cst
From: "Michael H. Riddle" <riddle@hoss.unl.edu>
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: Follow-up to Teleconect Call Blocking in Iowa
Cc: riddle@hoss.unl.edu
Message-Id: <9011122157.aa29602@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 0:55:35 CST
Resent-From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
Resent-To: ptownson@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU
Status: R
Bruce L. Wilson, Esq., a BBS-literate attorney in Des Moines, Iowa,
who represented Jim Schmickley in the formal complaint proceedings
before the Iowa Utilities Board against Teleconnect concerning its
blocking activities, was gracious enough to provide the following
update for us:
"I didn't review it in great detail, but the 'special edition'appears
to be primarily the text files which Jim Schmickley wrote and uploa-
ded as BLOCKER.ARC and similar names, with the last dated reference
being December 22, 1988. I don't know what, if anything, happened
after that with respect to the FCC complaint. As far as that filed
with the Iowa Utilities Board, a chronological listing of what took
place until the complaint was finally dismissed in September, 1990,
follows this discussion. The reason for that dismissal was that the
Board had effectively given all the prospective relief Jim could ask
for and expect to get from the complaint proceeding by adopting rules
concerning the blocking of terminating access by a long-distance car-
rier (applicable to Iowa intrastate traffic only, of course).
"From the beginning, it was apparent that this was an undefined situ-
ation as far as both the Board's rules and Teleconnect's tariffs were
concerned. When it came to denial of service, both were only con-
cerned with a carrier's relations with its customer, simply defined
as 'he who pays the bill,' not with those between a carrier and any
non-customer third party. Although Jim Schmickley was a Teleconnect
customer, what Teleconnect had done was cut off access over its lines
to the number of someone who had no relationship with it whatsoever.
As far as giving notice of its having 'disconnected' someone, it was
only required by the existing rules to give notice of a disconnection
to its customers; and it didn't know who the number belonged to any-
way because the information was nonpublished and the local exchange
carrier wouldn't tell it. The real solution would be for the Board
to fill in this gap by adopting new rules which would deal with the
matter on an industry-wide basis."
"However, the Board's rules and Teleconnect's tariffs weren't the
only source of authority to support Jim's position that what the com-
pany had done was wrong. Virtually unchanged since 1873, the Code of
Iowa has contained what is now Chapter 477. Specifically, Section
477.6 states that anyone employed in the business of doing so *shall*
transmit telephone and telegraph messages, without exception. The
argument was that the Chapter and Section set forth the policy of the
State of Iowa and that the later-enacted Chapter 476 which sets forth
the Utilities Board's power and the Board's rules enacted pursuant to
it must be interpreted consistently with that policy, which is to say
that the Board's rules permitting disconnection of service constitute
exceptions to that policy and that a company's actions in denying
service must clearly be within one of those exceptions or be illegal.
"At the initial 'pre-trial conference,' the parties were ordered to
come up with an agreed stipulation of facts and statement of legal
issues presented in the complaint proceeding. In the course of try-
ing to come up with a stipulation of facts, I found Teleconnect had
an 'interesting' philosophy with respect to 'participation' in toll
fraud. From the beginning, in its filings with the Utilities Board,
it had appeared to at least suggest that the bbs and sysop in ques-
tion had some involvement with the theft of Teleconnect service. The
company kept resisting the simple factual statement that a person or
persons unknown had committed toll fraud by calling the bbs number in
question by saying 'but there's 'more to it than that' and was fi-
nally told flat out that the bbs records for the period in question
were available, would be produced, and the company would have to ei-
ther put up or shut up with respect to its insinuating that the bbs
and its sysop had somehow been participating in the toll fraud. It
turned out that this 'participation' in the company's view was simply
that the bbs provided the means for a fraudulent call to be completed
even though the sysop had no way of knowing how calls to his system
were being made. Anyone, not just a bbs sysop, was a 'participant'
in toll fraud, according to the company, simply by answering a call
being fraudulently made, whether the person picking up the phone had
any idea that was how it was being made or not.
"We finally got a stipulation; and Teleconnect promptly ignored it in
its prehearing brief, prompting a motion to strike that brief which
was sustained by the Administrative Law Judge after a phone confe-
rence call hearing.
"The agreed procedure followed the customary procedure in utility
rate cases. The company would file prepared, written direct testi-
mony and exhibits of its witness, the complainant would then file his
direct testimony and that of his witness, and the company would file
its rebuttal testimony. A hearing would be held for the purpose of
cross-examining the various witnesses, briefs would be filed, and a
proposed decision rendered by the ALJ. The company's testimony ex-
tensively discussed the problem of toll fraud and why its actions had
been justified, then it filed a motion in limine in an attempt to
prevent *any* cross-examination of its witness about those aspects of
its witness' testimony. The response was both to resist the motion
and, in the alternative if the motion were to be granted, to strike
the witness' testimony and exhibits concerning the "taboo" subject.
"In the course of a hearing on the pending motion in limine, the mat-
ter of what Jim could hope to get in the way of relief through the
complaint proceeding was discussed. Should the ALJ agree that any
existing statute or Board rule had been violated, all he would be
able to give in the way of relief would be an order that this parti-
cular company not do it again; he couldn't fashion any sort of rules
for the entire industry, nor could he fill in the gap in the existing
rules by making new ones. Any relief to be given by the ALJ in the
complaint proceeding would be prospective in nature and only affect
Teleconnect, but the Board could address the matter on an industry-
wide basis and afford even better prospective relief by adopting
rules that everyone would have to follow in the future. It was
therefor agreed that both sides would petition the Utilities Board to
adopt rules concerning blocking and the complaint proceeding would be
stayed pending the Board's action on the petitions.
"Both sides filed rulemaking petitions. (That filed on behalf of Jim
Schmickley follows the chronology.) The Board ultimately denied both
petitions. Over a month after a motion to get the show on the road
again was filed and a month after a resistance to that motion was
filed, the Board began a rulemaking proceeding on its own. (Copies
of the Board's Notice of Intended Action and Order Commencing Rule
Making Proceeding follow the Schmickley petition.) The motion was
therefor withdrawn. The ALJ issued an order continuing the stay and
proposing to dismiss the complaint now that the Board had begun a
rulemaking on the subject. Dismissal was resisted on the grounds
that no one could know in advance how the rulemaking would affect the
complaint proceeding -- what, if any, rules the board would adopt.
As a result, the stay was simply continued to see what action the
Board would take in the rulemaking proceeding.
"Comments were filed in the rulemaking proceeding; and the Board ul-
timately adopted rules substantially the same as the proposed rules
to govern the blocking of Iowa intrastate terminating access by a
long-distance carrier, providing the long-distance carrier with the
name and address of the customer whose number was being blocked, and
notice to that customer of the fact of the blocking and of the oppor-
tunity for a hearing before the Board. I tried to conclude the com-
plaint proceeding by filing a motion for summary judgment, asking the
ALJ to issue an order to the company to the effect that 'thou hast
sinned, now go thou and sin no more,' but the ALJ wouldn't buy it and
ordered that the proceeding be dismissed as moot after the adoption
of rules by the Board."
Schmickley v. Teleconnect Chronology
Date
11/09/88 Utilities Board Order Granting Formal Complaint Pro-
ceedings and Assigning to Administrative Law Judge
11/29/88 ALJ's Order Scheduling Prehearing Conference
12/23/88 ALJ's Conference Report
01/13/89 Complainant's Motion for Extension of Time
01/20/89 Joint Statement of Legal Issues and Stipulation of
Facts
01/27/89 ALJ's Order Establishing Briefing Schedule
02/22/89 Company's Prehearing Brief
03/17/89 Complainant's Prehearing Brief
03/17/89 Complainant's Motion to Strike Company's Brief
03/17/89 Consumer Advocate's Prehearing Brief
04/06/89 ALJ's Order Granting Motion to Strike and Establishing
Procedural Schedule
Appearance by Phil Stoffregen for Company
05/15/89 Company's Prepared Direct Testimony and Exhibits
06/06/89 Company's Motion in Limine
06/08/89 Complainant's Resistance to Motion in Limine and
Motion to Strike (Company's) Testimony
06/13/89 Company's Resistance to Motion to Strike Testimony
and Reply in Support of Motion in Limine
06/15/89 Complainant's Motion for Extension of Time
06/19/89 Complainant's Prepared Direct Testimony
06/19/89 Prepared Direct Testimony and Exhibits of Complai-
nant's Witness
06/27/89 Company's Motions Concerning Hearing Schedule
07/06/89 Company's Prepared Rebuttal Testimony and Exhibits
07/11/89 ALJ's Order Scheduling Hearing on Motions and Re-
scheduling Evidentiary Hearing
07/13/89 Company's Brief in Support of Motion in Limine
07/14/89 Complainant's Brief and Argument Against Motion in
Limine and in Support of Motion to Strike Testimony
07/27/89 ALJ's Order Granting Stay
08/04/89 Complainant's Petition for Rulemaking
08/04/89 Company's Petition for Rulemaking
08/07/89 Board's Letter acknowledging receipt of
Complainant's Petition for Rulemaking
10/03/89 Board's Order Denying Petitions for Rulemaking
10/18/89 Complainant's Motion to Reopen Record
10/25/89 Company's Resistance to Motion to Reopen Record
11/27/89 Board's Order Commencing Rulemaking, Docket RMU-89-30
12/05/89 Complainant's Withdrawal of Motion to Reopen Record
12/12/89 ALJ's Order Continuing Stay
12/27/89 Complainant's Response to Order Continuing Stay,
Objecting to Dismissal, Motion to Reopen Record, and
Motion for Summary Judgment
Complainant's Comments filed in RMU-89-30
01/10/90 Company's Resistance to Complainant's Motions
01/12/90 Complainant's Additional Comments filed in RMU-89-30
04/26/90 ALJ's Order Continuing Stay and Denying Motions to
Reopen Record and for Summary Judgment
07/20/90 Board's Order Adopting Rules in RMU-89-30
08/02/90 Counsel's Letter to Chairman Nagel, re: notice of
oral presentation on proposed rules
08/03/90 Complainant's Motion for Summary Judgment and to Re-
open Record for Entry of Summary Judgment
08/20/90 Reply letter from Chairman Nagel to Counsel
09/11/90 ALJ's Proposed Decision and Order Dismissing
Complaint
09/18/90 ALJ's Errata Order
STATE OF IOWA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
UTILITIES DIVISON
_________________________________________________________________________
)
IN RE: )
) DOCKET NO. RMU-89-30
BLOCKING TERMINATING ACCESS )
____________________________________)____________________________________
ORDER COMMENCING RULE MAKING
(Issued November 27, 1989)
Pursuant to the authority of IOWA CODE 476.1, 476.2, 476.8, and
17A.4 (1989), the Utilities Board proposes the amendments to IOWA ADMIN.
CODE 199-22.4 attached to an incorporated by reference in this order.
This rule would be known as IOWA ADMIN. CODE 199-22.5(13). The reasons
for proposing this rule are set forth in the attached notice of intended
action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. A rule making proceeding under IOWA CODE 17A.4 (1989),
identified as RMU-89-30, is commenced for the purpose of receiving comment
upon the proposed rules attached to this order.
2. The Executive Secretary of the Utilities Board is directed to
submit for publication in the Iowa Administrative Bulletin a notice in the
form attached to and incorporated by reference in this order.
UTILITIES BOARD
_/s/__Dennis_J._Nagel_____________
_/s/__Paul_Franzenburg____________
ATTEST:
________________________________ _/s/__Nancy_Shimanek_Boyd_________
Executive Secretary
Dated at Des Moines, Iowa, this 27th day of November, 1989.
UTILITIES DIVISION [199]
NOTICE OF INTENDED ACTION
The Iowa State Utilities Board hereby gives notice that on November 27,
1989, the Board issued an order in Docket No. RMU-89-30, In Re: Blocking
Terminating Access, "Order Commencing Rule Making," pursuant to the
authority of IOWA CODE sections 476.1, 476.2, 476.8, and 17A.4 (1989), to
consider the adoption of a new rule, IOWA ADMIN. CODE 199-22.5(13) (1989).
This rule would address some of the problems surrounding fraudulent use
of the telephone network by providing a manner in which telephone
companies must deal with subscribers whose lines the company suspects may
be subject to use for telephone fraud. A recent complaint case before the
Board has brought this matter to the Board's attention.
Under IOWA CODE sections 17A.4(1)"a" and "b" (1989), all interested
persons may file written comments on the proposed rule no later than
January 2, 1990, by filing an original and ten copies of the comments
substantially complying with the form prescribed in IOWA ADMIN. CODE 199-
2.2(2) (1989). All written statements should clearly state the author's
name and address and should make specific reference to this docket. All
communications should be directed to the Executive Secretary, Iowa State
Utilities Board, Lucas State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319.
1
_____________________________________________________________
ITEM 1. Add the following new rule, 199-22.5(13):
Blocking.
a. No rate regulated or non-rate regulated local exchange utility or
interexchange utility shall block terminating access to an individual
number of a current residential or business subscriber, except as allowed
in subrule 22.5(13).
b. If a provider of long distance services desires, because of
suspected toll fraud, to block the completion of calls to an individual
access number or line number, that provider shall commence blocking only:
1. Twenty-four hours after delivery to an overnight delivery
service of notice of the blocking addressed to the named subscriber; or
2. Seventy-two hours after delivery to a U.S. post office, for
mailing by registered mail, of notice of the blocking addressed to the
named subscriber.
Compliance with subrule 22.5(13)"b"(1) shall be shown by a receipt
showing the time and date, and compliance with subrule 22.5(13)"b"(2)
shall be shown by a receipt showing the date. The long distance provider
performing the blocking or directing the local exchange utility to perform
the blocking shall be responsible for proper delivery of the notice of
blocking.
c. The notice of blocking shall:
2
1. Inform the subscriber of the line to be blocked that it has the
right to receive a complete copy of the long distance provider's records
of the instances where the provider suspects that its facilities have been
or are being used for purposes of toll fraud;
2. State the name and address to which any written request for
information may be mailed;
3. State that the subscriber, after receiving information from the
blocking utility, has the right to file a written complaint with the Iowa
State Utilities Board regarding this blocking;
4. State the address of the Iowa State Utilities Board;
5. State that the suspected toll fraud may not have been committed
by the subscriber and that the blocking implies no impropriety by the
subscriber;
The long distance provider performing the blocking or requesting the
blocking by a local exchange utility shall provide complete copies of all
the requested materials to the line subscriber within 24 hours of receipt
of the written request.
d. All utilities providing regulated telecommunication services in Iowa
shall designate individuals, who shall be available during all daytime
working hours, to be responsible for either requesting or receiving the
names and addresses of individuals whose line numbers are suspected of
being used for toll fraud. Names and addresses shall be released by one
3
utility to another within 24 hours of receipt of a written request and
only for the specific purpose of providing notice of the blocking to the
subscriber. Within 24 hours of receipt of the requested information, the
requesting utility shall commence notification procedures under
22.5(13)"b". This requirement to provide data includes all non-listed and
non-published numbers and customer address designations. All utilities
exchanging data under this subrule shall specifically agree that the
information shall be used only for the limited purpose of providing notice
of the blocking to the subscriber and that the information shall not be
released to any third parties.
e. Any utility desiring to implement blocking shall have tariffs on
file indicating that its long distance service to a given number may from
time to time be blocked by the utility because of suspected toll fraud.
The tariff shall state that a recorded message will be announced on the
identified line indicating that the line has been blocked.
November 27, 1989
_/s/__Dennis_J._Nagel______
Dennis J. Nagel
Chairperson
4
Following is the petition for rule making submitted by James
Schmickley that was denied by the Utilities Board:
================================================================
STATE OF IOWA
BEFORE THE IOWA UTILITIES BOARD
________________________________________________________________
)
IN RE: Rules Relating to )
Denial of Service by Iowa ) DOCKET NO. RMU-89-19
Telephone Utility Companies )
to Other Than Their Own ) PETITION FOR RULE MAKING
Customers. )
________________________________)________________________________
COMES NOW James Schmickley, the complainant in Docket No.
FCU-88-5 (C-88-61), by his undersigned counsel, pursuant to the
Order Granting Stay issued by Administrative Law Judge Edmund
Schlak, Jr., in that proceeding and for his petition states:
Rules to Be Amended or Adopted
1. Amend the board's rules at 199 Iowa Administrative Code
Chapter 22 by:
a. Renumbering section 22.15(1) as 22.15(1)"a"; renumbering
section 22.15(2) as 22.15(1)"b"; renumbering section 22.15(3) as
22.15(1)"c"; and adding as new 22.15(1) the words "Connections
with local exchange services or facilities."
b. Adding as new 22.15(2) the words "Standards of service to
the public."
c. Adding as new 22.15(2)"a" the words "An interexchange
utility shall comply with the board's rules found at 199 IAC 22.4
with respect to relations with its customers as such are defined
at 199 IAC 22.1(3)."
d. Adding as new 22.15(2)"b" the words "An interexchange
utility shall not, on its own, without an order either of a court
of competent jurisdiction or of a law enforcement agent or agency
acting pursuant to such an order or to statutory authority, refuse
to allow calls to be made through its facilities by its customers
from any point within the State of Iowa to any other point within
the State of Iowa."
e. Adding as new 22.15(2)"c" the words "Every interexchange
utility blocking access to a number pursuant to an order of a
court or of a law enforcement agent or agency shall configure its
equipment so that the call of anyone attempting to call any such
number shall be intercepted by either an operator or a device
which transmits a recorded announcement to the caller. The caller
shall be advised by such operator or recorded announcement that
the call cannot be completed and shall be given a local or toll-
free number to call for more information from the utility and the
name of a company representative at such number with whom to
speak. Such company representative shall make such disclosure of
the reasons the call could not be completed as may be made without
impeding an active investigation or prosecution and shall advise
the caller that a complaint may be made to the board if the caller
is dissatisfied with the company's response, giving the address
and telephone number of the board. On receiving any such
complaint, the board shall investigate and advise the complainant
whether the company's action is in accordance with the board's
rules and applicable law and proceed against the company if it
finds a violation.
e. Adding as new 22.15(2)"d" the words "Every interexchange
utility shall file with the board, within thirty (30) days after
adoption of these rules, a report showing the name of or number
assigned to any and all entities not its customers to which it has
denied access through its facilities on its own, contrary to
22.15(2)"b", the reasons for denying access, the period during
which access was denied, and the date on which such blocking
ceased, unless the blocking is being continued in accordance with
22.15(2)"b", in which case the utility shall report the quantity
of affected telephone numbers and cite the authority under which
it is acting without revealing the specific numbers affected by
each order, or unless the utility has not engaged in such bloc-
king, in which case the utility shall so state. Any utility re-
quired to make a report by this section may petition the board for
an order that the contents of such report shall not be disclosed
to the public, giving good and sufficient reasons therein why the
request should be granted and citing authority in support of its
argument.
f. Adding as new 22.15(3) the words "Cooperation in toll
fraud investigations."
g. Adding as new section 22.15(3)"a" the words "Every in-
terexchange and intraexchange telephone utility shall cooperate
with every other interexchange and intraexchange telephone utility
in the conduct of investigations into the use of any such
utility's facilities (1) in a manner the purpose or effect of
which is to avoid payment of lawful charges for such use or (2) in
furtherance of any scheme the purpose or effect of which is to
avoid payment of lawful charges for such use."
h. Adding as new section 22.15(3)"b" the words "Any inter-
exchange or intraexchange telephone utility which the board finds
has refused to cooperate without good cause in an investigation
described in 22.15(3)"a" shall be in willful violation of board
rules."
Supporting Argument
2.a. This rulemaking proposal is a direct result of the dis-
covery that the Teleconnect Company of Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
blocked, and maintains that it has the power to block at its sole
discretion, its customers within the State of Iowa with whom it
had no complaint from using its facilities to place interexchange
calls to a number assigned to someone within the State of Iowa who
was not its customer simply because some third party may have com-
mitted toll fraud by calling the number using a Teleconnect access
code which was stolen or discovered simply by trying various num-
bers until finding one that worked. The blocking was done en-
tirely by the company on its own, not in compliance with any court
order or in cooperation with any law enforcement agent or agency,
to the best of the petitioner's knowledge. The company has pro-
duced no evidence that the person responsible for the number to
which access was denied himself had any active involvement with
the fraudulent use of the company's facilities.
b. The parties in Docket No. FCU-88-5 have recognized that
Teleconnect is not the only interexchange carrier operating within
Iowa; it is simply the only one discovered so far to be doing what
it was doing. It may or may not be the only interexchange carrier
which has been or is denying access in this manner; and no order
entered in Docket No. FCU-88-5 can deal with the matter on a
statewide basis by affecting any company other than Teleconnect.
There is no effective way to find out how widespread the use of
this procedure is or has been other than by requiring every in-
terexchange carrier to report such actions to the Board; and there
appears to be no way to deal with the very real, practical
problems encountered by Teleconnect in conducting a toll fraud
investigation other than by the Board's requiring cooperation
between the carriers in the conduct of such investigations.
c. The situation prompting this rulemaking proposal is a
direct result of recent changes in the provision of interexchange
telephone service. While the local exchange companies, particu-
larly the Bell Operating Companies, and the American Telephone and
Telegraph Company formed an integrated, exclusive telephone
network, the customer of one was the customer of both; and the
actions complained of with respect to Teleconnect simply could not
have occurred. A fraud perpetrated upon the one was perpetrated
upon them all and information could and would be exchanged to
identify the culprit.
d. The board's rules have simply failed to keep pace with
the changes that have taken place in the provision of interex-
change service. The rules contained in 190 IAC Chapter 22 only
deal with relations between a utility and its customer, defined as
whoever pays the bill, as do the utilities' tariffs. Teleconnect
gave no notice of its actions to anyone because it had no one to
notify, it used an intercept which wrongly advised its customers
who attempted to call the blocked number that theirs were local
calls, and it used the fact that no one complained to further
defend its actions. The proposed rules are designed to fill this
gap.
e. The policy of the State has been expressed since the
1800's (Code of 1873, Sec. 1328) in what is now Code Section
477.6, which provides, in pertinent part, that any person employed
in transmitting messages by telegraph or telephone who willfully
refuses to do so shall be guilty of a simple misdemeanor. The
Board is not charged with enforcement of Chapter 477, but Chapter
476 and the Board's Rules should be interpreted in pari materia
with Section 477.6. The proposed rules are designed to further
the policy stated in Code Section 477.6 and should be adopted
notwithstanding any decision by the Board to de-regulate Iowa
intrastate toll telephone service because it has become com-
petitive.
f. The proposed rules are in no way to be interpreted as a
defense of the perpetrators of telephone toll fraud. Notwith-
standing the separation of interexchange and intraexchange car-
riers in recent years, the perpetrators of telephone toll fraud
commit an offense against all paying telephone customers. It is
in the public interest that perpetrators of telephone toll fraud
be identified and apprehended. The proposed rules will not, in
any way, impede a toll fraud investigation by law enforcement
authorities or by the companies themselves. They may, in fact,
encourage the companies to initiate and cooperate in such inves-
tigations by denying them the ability to simply foist the problem
off onto another carrier. When its denial of access was chal-
lenged, Teleconnect, for example, advised its customers they had
the option to make the call via AT&T.
g. In defense of its actions, Teleconnect has stated that
denying access was the only thing it could do; that it was unable
to ascertain the identity of the entity to which the number being
blocked was assigned, that entity not being itself one of the com-
pany's customers, because the local exchange carrier of which the
entity was a customer could not or would not divulge the informa-
tion. Without that information, it could not contact the entity
to enlist its aid in ascertaining the identity of the toll fraud
perpetrator. Pertinent provisions of the proposed rules are
designed to mandate cooperation in furtherance of the common goal,
for the benefit of all Iowa ratepayers.
WHEREFORE, James Schmickley, prays that the Board institute a
rulemaking proceeding to amend its rules as hereinbefore set
forth.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Bruce L. Wilson
Attorney for Petitioner
677 - 61st Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50312
(515) 277-4904
From telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Mon Nov 19 01:53:04 1990
Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
id AA16724; Mon, 19 Nov 90 01:52:58 EST
Resent-Message-Id: <9011190652.AA16724@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31840; 8 Nov 90 10:27 CST
Received: from hoss.unl.edu by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA28851; Thu, 8 Nov 90 11:27:10 -0500
Message-Id: <9011081627.AA28851@uunet.uu.net>
Received: by hoss.unl.edu; Thu, 8 Nov 90 10:30:08 cst
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 90 10:30:08 cst
From: Network News Administer <news@hoss.unl.edu>
To: uunet!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.uu.net
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 0:55:01 CST
Resent-From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
Resent-To: ptownson@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU
Status: R
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Path: hoss.unl.edu!riddle
>From: riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle)
Subject: Re: Blocking of Long Distance Calls - Part II
Message-ID: <1990Nov08.163001.16424@hoss.unl.edu>
Sender: news@hoss.unl.edu (Network News Administer)
Organization: University of Nebraska, Computing Resource Center
References: <14299@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 90 16:30:01 GMT
In Message-ID: <14299@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 3 Nov 90 23:37:00 GMT regarding
TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 Nov 90 17:37:00 CST Blocking LD Calls - Part II
the Moderator writes:
> [Moderator's Note: My thanks to Mr. Winslade for sending this along.
> Now we need an update: what has happened over the past two years? We
> know of course that Telecom*USA is now part of MCI.
Bruce Wilson, Esq., a BBS-literate attorney who was involved in
the Teleconnect blocking case in Iowa, was gratious enough to
provide the following update for us:
"The [special edition] appears to be primarily the text files
which Jim Schmickley wrote and uploaded as BLOCKER.ARC and similar
names, with the last dated reference being December 22, 1988. I
don't know what, if anything, happened after that with respect to
the FCC complaint. As far as that filed with the Iowa Utilities
Board, [a] chronological listing [follows at the end] of what
took place until the complaint was finally dismissed in September,
1990. The reason for that dismissal was that the Board had
effectively given all the prospective relief Jim could ask for and
expect to get from the complaint proceeding by adopting rules
concerning the blocking of terminating access by a long-distance
carrier (applicable to Iowa intrastate traffic only, of course).
"In the course of trying to come up with a stipulation of facts, I
found Teleconnect had an "interesting" philosophy with respect to
"participation" in toll fraud. From the beginning, in its filings
with the Utilities Board, it had appeared to at least suggest that
the bbs and sysop in question had some involvement with the theft
of Teleconnect service. The company kept resisting the simple
factual statement that a person or persons unknown had committed
toll fraud by calling the bbs number in question and was finally
told the bbs records for the period in question were available,
would be produced, and the company would have to either put up or
shut up with respect to its insinuating that the bbs and its sysop
had somehow been participating in the toll fraud. It turned out
that this "participation" in the company's view was simply that the
bbs provided the means for a fraudulent call to be terminated, even
though the sysop had no way of knowing how calls to his system were
being made. Anyone, not just a bbs sysop, was a "participant" in
toll fraud, according to the company, simply by answering a call
being fraudulently made, whether the person picking up the phone
knew that was how it was being made or not.
"We finally got a stipulation; and Teleconnect promptly ignored it
in its prehearing brief, prompting a motion to strike that brief
which was sustained by the Administrative Law Judge after a phone
conference call hearing.
"The agreed procedure followed the customary procedure in utility
rate cases. The company would file prepared, written direct
testimony and exhibits of its witness, the complainant would then
file his direct testimony and that of his witness, and the company
would file its rebuttal testimony. A hearing would be held for the
purpose of cross-examining the various witnesses, briefs would be
filed, and a proposed decision rendered by the ALJ. The company's
testimony extensively discussed the problem of toll fraud and why
its actions had been justified, then it filed a motion in limine in
an attempt to prevent any cross-examination of its witness about
those aspects of its witness' testimony. The response was to
resist the motion and, in the alternative if the motion were to be
granted, to strike the witness' testimony and exhibits concerning
the "taboo" subject.
"In the course of a hearing on the pending motion in limine, the
matter of what Jim could hope to get in the way of relief through
the complaint proceeding was discussed. What Teleconnect had been
caught doing simply wasn't covered in the Board's rules or company
tariffs. Should the ALJ agree that any existing statute or Board
rule had been violated, all he would be able to give in the way of
relief would be an order that this particular company not do it
again; he couldn't fashion any sort of rules for the entire
industry, nor could he fill in the gap in the existing rules by
making new ones. Any relief to be given by the ALJ in the
complaint proceeding would be prospective in nature and only affect
Teleconnect, but the Board could address the matter on an industry-
wide basis and afford even better prospective relief by adopting
rules that everyone would have to follow in the future. It was
therefor agreed that both sides would petition the Utilities Board
to adopt rules concerning blocking and the complaint proceeding
would be stayed pending the Board's action on the petitions.
"Both sides filed rulemaking petitions; and the Board ultimately
denied both petitions. Over a month after a motion to get the show
on the road again was filed and a month after a resistance to that
motion was filed, the Board began the rulemaking proceeding on its
own motion, so the motion was withdrawn. The ALJ issued an order
continuing the stay and proposing to dismiss the complaint now that
the Board had begun a rulemaking on the subject. This was resisted
on the grounds that no one could know in advance how the rulemaking
would affect the complaint proceeding -- what, if any, rules the
board would adopt. As a result, the stay was simply continued to
see what action the Board would take in the rulemaking proceeding.
"Comments were filed in the rulemaking proceeding; and the Board
ultimately adopted rules to govern the blocking of Iowa intrastate
terminating access by a long-distance carrier, providing the long-
distance carrier with the name and address of the customer whose
number was being blocked, and notice to that customer of the fact
of the blocking and of the opportunity for a hearing before the
Board. I tried to conclude the complaint proceeding by filing a
motion for summary judgment, asking the ALJ to issue an order to
the company to the effect that "thou hast sinned, now go thou and
sin no more," but the ALJ wouldn't buy it and effectively ordered
that the proceeding be dismissed as moot with the adoption of rules
by the Board."
Schmickley v. Teleconnect
Date
11/09/88 Utilities Board Order Granting Formal Complaint Pro-
ceedings and Assigning to Administrative Law Judge
11/29/88 ALJ's Order Scheduling Prehearing Conference
12/23/88 ALJ's Conference Report
01/13/89 Complainant's Motion for Extension of Time
01/20/89 Joint Statement of Legal Issues and Stipulation of
Facts
01/27/89 ALJ's Order Establishing Briefing Schedule
02/22/89 Company's Prehearing Brief
03/17/89 Complainant's Prehearing Brief
03/17/89 Complainant's Motion to Strike Company's Brief
03/17/89 Consumer Advocate's Prehearing Brief
04/06/89 ALJ's Order Granting Motion to Strike and Establishing
Procedural Schedule
Appearance by Phil Stoffregen for Company
05/15/89 Company's Prepared Direct Testimony and Exhibits
06/06/89 Company's Motion in Limine
06/08/89 Complainant's Resistance to Motion in Limine and
Motion to Strike (Company's) Testimony
06/13/89 Company's Resistance to Motion to Strike Testimony
and Reply in Support of Motion in Limine
06/15/89 Complainant's Motion for Extension of Time
06/19/89 Complainant's Prepared Direct Testimony
06/19/89 Prepared Direct Testimony and Exhibits of Complai-
nant's Witness
06/27/89 Company's Motions Concerning Hearing Schedule
07/06/89 Company's Prepared Rebuttal Testimony and Exhibits
07/11/89 ALJ's Order Scheduling Hearing on Motions and Re-
scheduling Evidentiary Hearing
07/13/89 Company's Brief in Support of Motion in Limine
07/14/89 Complainant's Brief and Argument Against Motion in
Limine and in Support of Motion to Strike Testimony
07/27/89 ALJ's Order Granting Stay
08/04/89 Complainant's Petition for Rulemaking
08/04/89 Company's Petition for Rulemaking
08/07/89 Board's Letter acknowledging receipt of
Complainant's Petition for Rulemaking
10/03/89 Board's Order Denying Petitions for Rulemaking
10/18/89 Complainant's Motion to Reopen Record
10/25/89 Company's Resistance to Motion to Reopen Record
11/27/89 Board's Order Commencing Rulemaking, Docket RMU-89-30
12/05/89 Complainant's Withdrawal of Motion to Reopen Record
12/12/89 ALJ's Order Continuing Stay
12/27/89 Complainant's Response to Order Continuing Stay,
Objecting to Dismissal, Motion to Reopen Record, and
Motion for Summary Judgment
Complainant's Comments filed in RMU-89-30
01/10/90 Company's Resistance to Complainant's Motions
01/12/90 Complainant's Additional Comments filed in RMU-89-30
04/26/90 ALJ's Order Continuing Stay and Denying Motions to
Reopen Record and for Summary Judgment
07/20/90 Board's Order Adopting Rules in RMU-89-30
08/02/90 Counsel's Letter to Chairman Nagel, re: notice of
oral presentation on proposed rules
08/03/90 Complainant's Motion for Summary Judgment and to Re-
open Record for Entry of Summary Judgment
08/20/90 Reply letter from Chairman Nagel to Counsel
09/11/90 ALJ's Proposed Decision and Order Dismissing
Complaint
09/18/90 ALJ's Errata Order
My thanks to Bruce for his update.
--
riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska
riddle@crchpux.unl.edu | College of Law
mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
TUCoPS is optimized to look best in Firefox® on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2024 AOH
