TELECOM Digest     Fri, 7 Oct 94 13:45:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 390
 
Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson
 
     Re: UDI vs RDI in ISDN (Al Varney)
     Modem Saver Devices (Dan Ts'o)
     Re: Frame Relay vs. ISDN vs. T1 vs. ???? (Michael Gray)
     Re: Cellular From a Small Plane (Bob Keller)
     Re: Cellular From a Small Plane (John Gersh)
     Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud (Aaron
Woolfson)
     Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud 
(styri@nta.no)
     Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud (Carl 
Moore)
     $50 Million in Quarters? (A. Padgett Peterson)
     "$50 Million" Fraud (Will Martin)
 
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the 
moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
 
Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
 
                  * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu *
 
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                     9457-D Niles Center Road
                      Skokie, IL USA   60076
                        Phone: 708-329-0571
                         Fax: 708-329-0572
   ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **
 
Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.
 
**********************************************************************
*
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              
*
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    
*
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   
*
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as 
represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 
*
**********************************************************************
*
 
Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your 
help
is important and appreciated.
 
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. 
Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From: varney@usgp4.ih.att.com (Al Varney)
Subject: Re: UDI vs RDI in ISDN
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 12:11:44 GMT
 
 
In article <telecom14.382.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, perpetual psycheness
<psyche@metronet.com> wrote:
 
> In the world of ISDN, what exactly does UDI and RDI mean?  And when
> would a person know which one to use?  (e.g. you try making a UDI 
call
> and then realize that it doesn't work, so then you try RDI?  What 
kind
> of indications does the network use to determine what to do?)
 
    UDI = unrestricted digital information -- also called 64U or "64 
clear"
          or 64C
    RDI = restricted digital information -- also called "64 
restricted"
          or 64R or sometimes 64I
 
    An ISDN user does not make a UDI or RDI call.  UDI/RDI is one part
of the Bearer Capability information passed to/from the network.
Specifically, the "information transfer capability" can be set to
either UDI or RDI.  The "information transfer rate" for a data call
would then be set to "64 kbps".  Together, the two parts are used to
request 64K IDSN data calls, commonly abbreviated as 64U or 64R calls.
Sometimes the 64U calls are calls "64 clear" or 64C; the "clear"
signifies that the channel is "clearly" or transparently carrying all
data values.  The 64R calls can be used to allow calls over facilities
(or trunks or circuits) that are not capable of transporting all data
values -- specifically the 8-bit value "0" (or "11111111" if you are
inverting data before transmission) cannot be carried.  The requester
of an RDI call is responsible for ensuring no "0" values are
transmitted -- if they occur, the network will alter at least one bit
to enforce the restriction.
 
    The "network" attempts to complete calls using the information in
the Bearer Capability you provide and information provided by the
operator of the network.  If you request UDI, the call will route (or
attempt to route) over facilities that have been designated by the
operator as supporting UDI.  If the facilities don't, in fact, support
UDI -- you get some of your bits mangled.  But this is no different TO
THE NETWORK than routing you over a bad facility -- the facility is
not working as the switches have been told it does.
 
> I think that UDI is supposed to be a 64kbps clear channel xmission
> (and I think you can have an RDI call over a trunk conditioned for 
UDI).
 
    If you request RDI, then the network (switches) will route over
facilities designated to support RDI, and will use UDI routes if no
RDI facilities are available.  Regardless of what that switch selects,
the switch at the other end of the selected facility will receive the
same Bearer Capability you originally requested, so that it can
attempt to select a trunk from all the original possibilities.
 
    The above "rules" apply to SS7-connected switches which are
carrying the selected UDI/RDI request via SS7 signaling.  I understand
RDI can be a problem when calling out of or into the USA, since many
countries use E1 (vs. T1) facilities that do not have a data value
restriction.
 
>   And I think that RDI means that the data is restricted in the
> sense that you can't have some number of contiguous 0's, which
> effectively reduces the maximum bit rate to 56kbps, right?  But 
then,
                                                       ^^^^^
                                                        NO!
 
> could you try sending data at 64kbps for an RDI call or is one of 
the
> bits for each channel used to keep sync (I'm assuming this is over 
T1
> type trunks for RDI; I guess E1 type trunks don't have this problem
> and are 64kbps clear channel trunks by nature?).
 
    The 56 kbps bit rate vs. RDI is confusing.  I can't assure you 
that
I can un-confuse the issues.  RDI is a restriction on 8-bit data
values; the value "00000000" is prohibited.  But there is no rate
adaption or change to the data rate implied by RDI.  You send at 64
kbps, period.  The reason for RDI is due to T1 facilities that don't
use B8ZS or other schemes to remove the original T1 restriction that
no more than 15 "0"s could be sent over the facility -- more "0"s
meant loss of sync.  (Some pre-B8ZS schemes used non-adjacent channels
for data or borrowed bits from a control channel to remove the RDI
restriction.)
 
    The use of 56 kbps in the USA/Canada and a few other T1 countries
came about because one bit of the channel was sometimes used as a
signaling bit (on-hook,off-hook indicator).  In standard T1, this
happens in every sixth frame.  Because the sixth frame on one circuit
isn't the sixth frame on another, the 1-out-of-6 position cannot be
predicted end-to-end.  This effectively removes the ability to use 8
bits -- 7 bits at the 8000 frames/second T1 rate yields 56 kbps.
 
    When SS7 signaling is used, switches don't need the signaling bit
in the T1 channel.  For some switches, this permits 64 kbps over RDI
as soon as SS7 is implemented between 2 switches.  Others require
hardware upgrades to remove the "hard-coded" signaling bit.  But even
when the signaling bit is removed, the T1 transport facility still
can't handle unrestricted data -- that requires a change to the
facility (sometimes a hardware upgrade, sometimes just changing data
in the facility).
 
     From an ISDN end-point, 56 kbps is a V.120 rate adaption scheme.
The network knows which bit to ignore (and force to a "1").  The far
end end-point will get 64 kbps data, and will ignore the eighth bit.
 
> But, 64kbps or 56kbps doesn't necessarily mean UDI and RDI, 
respectively,
> does it?
 
    Correct.  You can, in theory, use UDI or RDI with 64 kbps calls.
Or you can use UDI or RDI with 64 kbps calls rate adapted to 56 kbps.
To confuse the issue, Bellcore requirements for ISDN don't recognize
RDI, so they only talk about 64 kbps via UDI and 56 kbps rate adaption
over 64 kbps via UDI.  Unfortunately, there are some vendors who
adopted the rule that 56 kbps calls would use an "information transfer
capability" of RDI.  When connecting to networks/equipment that only
recognizes an "information transfer capability" of UDI, the call will
be refused.
 
    Also, some carriers (LEC and IXC) may still have some 56Kbps
facilities (trunks and "switched 56" customers).  If such trunks are
in the path of the call (which could start out 56 kbps with UDI or
with RDI, the switches/customer beyond the 56Kbps facility receive
only the called number -- and must assume a value of UDI or RDI for
your 56Kbps call.  The value assumed depends on the network, the
switch and lots of other semi-random information.
 
> And how does rate adaption come into the picture?  Is it possible to
> have 9600bps data stream rate adapted up to 56kbps for RDI?  or up 
to
> 64kbps for UDI?  Is V.120 or V.110 common in the U.S.?  What is
> commonly used overseas?  What are the advantages of V.120 over V.110
> or are there not any?
 
    V.120 common in USA.  V.110 common in Europe.  V.120 is more
flexible, but has some added overhead.  V.110 has less overhead if you
can keep its fixed sub-channels full of data.  9600 bps is supported
by both.  Since 56 kbps is itself a rate adaption, it's hard to say
9600 bps is supported by 56 kbps -- I believe you could indicate 56K
in the Bearer Capability rate adaption and would use LLC to indicate
the actual partitioning of one or more 9600 bps over the 64 kbps
B-channel.  (Keep in mind that the ISDN end-points never actually
transmit at anything other than 64 kbps.)  If I remember correctly,
V.120 rate adaption for 9600 bps forces 1 out of the 8 bits to a "1",
so the same bit pattern would work over both 56 kbps or 64 kbps calls,
whether UDI or RDI.
 
    Asking a more specific question on comp.dcom.isdn might get you a
more correct (and shorter) answer ...
 
 
Al Varney - just my opinion
 
------------------------------
 
From: tso@cephalo.neusc.bcm.tmc.edu (Dan Ts'o)
Subject: Modem Saver Devices
Date: 7 Oct 1994 07:03:59 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston,Tx
 
 
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The original message on this did not
appear in the Digest. It was ported here from some other news group
where it appeared under the title "Digital Phone Lines Spell D-A-N-G-E-
R".
Thanks to Dan for passing it along.   PAT]
 
In article <santraCx6AJB.L46@netcom.com> santra@netcom.com (Sandy
Santra) writes:
 
> Digital phone systems run current through their phone lines.
> This current is capable of frying modems, including PCMCIA
> modems--as in: PLUG THIS IN AND YOU CAN KISS YOUR MODEM GOODBYE.
> One alternative is to buy a Modem Saver, a product which you can
> use to test a phone line before connecting it to your laptop's
> modem.  IBM makes the Modem Saver, and you can order it by
> calling 1-800-388-7080.  Ask for part #73G5395.  It's $25.
 
> The Modem Saver will tell you whether the phone line you have
> connected it to is a (1) normal line, (2) a reversed polarity
> line, or (3) a digital line (with a current of more than 90
> milliamps).  If it registers as a digital line, you should NOT
> plug your modem into the line.  It will destroy it.  If the
> voltage is below 90 milliamps, it apparently may register as a
> "normal" line, but at least you know that plugging the line into
> your modem won't damage it.
 
  Radio Shack sells a similar device without the high current
function.  It detects one or two lines on an RJ-11 and tells you its
polarity. It costs $6. The schematic is:
 
  --------+----------+
   \          |
  Line 1 /          V  red/green LED
   \680ohms   |
   / .5W      |
  --------+----------+
 
 
  The circuit for Line 2 is identical. Note that each red/green
LED comes standard as reverse wired (red LED "forward", green LED
"reversed).
 
  Based on the above, I think an appropriate modification to
include a high current indicator would be: (I've tested it)
 
       20ohm
  --+-\/\/\/--+-----------+----------+
    |         |  \          |
    +--->|----+  /          V  red/green LED
     red/green  \680ohms   |
       LED  / .5W      |
  ------------------------+----------+
 
  You can adjust the 20ohm resistor value to set what is
considered "high current". 20ohms lights the LED at around 90ma.
 
  Total parts costs <$4, or if you use Radio Shack's $6 line
tester and add the above resistor and LED, then <$7. (I'm not faulting
IBM for charging $30).
 
  This whole issue really bothers me, because it means that I
can't bring a PCMCIA modem with me on trips and count on it working at
any given hotel. That means I should carry around my pocket modem just
in case. So then what's the point of having the PCMCIA modem!
 
 
Cheers,
 
Dan Ts'o
Div. Neuroscience       713-798-3331
Baylor College of Medicine
1 Baylor Plaza S553 dan@dna.neusc.bcm.tmc.edu
Houston, TX  77030      tso@cephalo.neusc.bcm.tmc.edu
 
------------------------------
 
From: misha@panix.com (Michael Gray)
Subject: Re: Frame Relay vs. ISDN vs. T1 vs. ????
Date: 7 Oct 1994 10:50:13 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
 
 
spelegan@csc.com wrote:
 
> We have a commercial customer who's asked us to setup a BBS system 
for
> them.  They've asked us to recommend a telecom option for them to
> use that best suits their needs.  They'd like to start out with 8
> lines going into the BBS with the ability to move up to 16, 24, etc.
> They'd like their customers to have one 800 number to call to reach
> this BBS, no matter where they are in the US.  Their customers will
> have off-the-shelf modems, ranging from 1200-14.4 baud.
 
> My initial recommendation was for T1 if they expected heavy usage
> (>$3K/month in long distance charges).  But I've seen enough 
articles
> recently about ISDN and frame relay to be hesitant in putting my
> recommendation in stone.
 
> I know very little about telecommunications, only what I've picked 
up
> during conversations with long distance carrier sales people.  My
> brief education on ISDN tells me that if I wish to implement this
> scenario, people who want to call into our customer's BBS will have 
to
> have a special terminal and their local Ma Bell has to offer ISDN.
> I'm even more cloudy on Frame Relay.  Can I have one 800 number with
> Frame Relay?  Do you need a special terminal/modem to dial into a
> frame relay network?  How does it compare to T1?  vs. T1 cost?  vs.
> T1 reliability?  Please correct any assumptions that I've made T1,
> ISDN, and Frame Relay.
 
I am no expert in this field, but my guess is that for long distance
costs, the T1 would offer the most savings.  There is a lot of
compitition for long distance traffic in the T1 market. T1s can be had
directly from long distance carriers with 800 services at better
prices than can be had on POTS lines.  I don't know if there exists
modem hardware that connects directly to T1 lines.  You would probobly
need some expensive switching equipment to switch calls from a rack
mounted array of modems to the T1.  I would recommend purchasing only
V.34 28.8Kbs modems, since they WILL be the new standard and if you
are purchasing them in bulk, the costs will not be as great as you may
think.  You will also pay less in long distance time by sending data
faster.
 
ISDN connections would allow you to connect to BOTH customers with
POTS (Plain Old Telephone Services) services and with ISDN services,
however you need separate ISDN modems and 28Kbs modems, special
equipment to hook the 28.8Kbs modems to the ISDN lines.  Also the
equipment costs may be higher. This would allow you to recieve calls
from people with dial-up modems and people who have ISDN service.  The
ISDN customers could connect at speeds of 64Kbs.  If you don't need
this high bandwith, then don't go with ISDN.
 
I am not sure what Frame Relay is.  I think they are talking about
X.25 service.  I don't know the specs on this.  I think that it is a
low bandwidth connection.  It sends data across shared packet switch
networks so the cost of such services is low, usually lower than
standard long distance POTS services.  It does require special
hardware and connectivity at the customers end, but is generally cost
efficient for low bandwidth dedicated lines.  If I am wrong, maybe
someone in Netland will correct me.
 
Hope this helps some.
 
 
Mike
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 22:03:19 EDT
From: Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com>
Reply-To: Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Cellular From a Small Plane
 
 
On Tue, 4 Oct 1994, in TELECOM Digest (Vol 14 Iss 386) Linc Madison
<LincMad@netcom.com> wrote:
 
> I was under the impression that using a cellphone from any sort of 
an
> airplane was a bad idea, if not outright illegal.
 
It is outright illegal.  FCC regulation prohibits the use of any
cellular unit once an aircraft (large or small, jet or prop, hot air
balloon or glider) is airborne.  The FCC has further clarified that
"airborne" means off the ground, so it matters little whether the
plane flies at 30,000 feet or at 500 feed for purposes of this
regulation.
 
The FAA and the commercial airlines have their own ideas and their own
separate requirements (hence the admonition on most commercial flights
that you can't use your cellular phone -- although I notice they are
now calling them wireless telephones -- at any time on the aircraft,

------------------------------
 
From: John_Gersh@aplmail.jhuapl.edu (John Gersh)
Subject: Re: Cellular From a Small Plane
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 1994 11:47:02 -0400
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab
 
 
In article <telecom14.386.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, LincMad@netcom.com (Linc
Madison) wrote:
 
> As I was driving through San Francisco the other day, I saw a dealer
> of cellular phones with a sign painted in the window with a biplane
> trailing a banner announcing that you could use their cellular 
phones
> from any small plane...
 
> I was under the impression that using a cellphone from any sort of 
an
> airplane was a bad idea, if not outright illegal...
 
It is illegal, or at least contrary to FCC regs, to use a cell phone 
from
an aircraft *while airborne* 47 CFR 22.911(a)(1) says:
 
    (1) Cellular telephones shall not be operated in airplanes,
    balloons or any other aircraft capable of airborne operation
    while airborne. Once the aircraft is airborne, all cellular
    telephones on board such vehicles must be turned off. The term
    airborne means the aircraft is not touching the ground. Cellular
    telephones may be installed in aircraft. A cellular telephone
    which is installed in an aircraft must contain a posted notice
    which reads: "The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft
    is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of
    this rule could result in suspension of service and/or a fine.
    The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the
    ground is subject to FAA regulations."
 
[Parsing that first sentence was fun, wasn't it?] To be as charitable
as possible toward the dealer (perhaps more charitable than 
warranted),
the sign is technically correct in that "you could use their cellular
phones from any small plane," as long as the plane is still on the
ground. It would be interesting to see if the dealer actually spells
out the regulation to purchasers and offers them placards of the
official notice with the phones.
 
 
John R. Gersh             John_Gersh@aplmail.jhuapl.edu
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Laurel, MD 20723                        +1(301)953-5503
 
------------------------------
 
From: awoolfso@uop.edu (Aaron Woolfson)
Subject: Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud
Date: 6 Oct 1994 18:58:31 -0700
Organization: University of the Pacific
 
 
Well ... I sit here looking over an inter-exchange carrier switching
system at our carrier and am thinking to myself:
 
WAS that really $50,000,000 lost or was it just $50,000,000. not
collected?  It somehow just doesn't seem the same as someone getting
on to some scheme to actually steal money.
 
Does anyone know that the telephone network is ALWAYS transmitting to
it's maximum capacity, regardless of the information placed over it?
T1's are hooked up between locations and all the data is placed over
those facilities in the form of 0's or 1's.  If there are 1's and the
A&B bits over the T1 show that there is traffic there, then a circuit
gets billed.  That's how simple it really is.
 
I know that I will probably get a lot of heat from people within the
telephone industry and especially the companies who we build fraud
detection devices for just for saying this.  But I just do not see how
it can possibly really be hurting MCI.
 
1) MCI has FIXED costs for leasing the T1's between the POPs.
 
2) If a circuit logs 10 or 10,000 minutes of billable time,
  MCI is paying the same amount anyway.
 
3) Perhaps if the calls were being terminated to locations where
  MCI is using WilTel's or AT&T's facilities, there may be some
  nominal termination charges.
 
Although I am not suggesting that it is not a big deal what happened,
I just don't see how MCI can be running around and crying that they
are losing all this money, when THEY REALLY AREN'T!  They are just
not collecting nearly as much revenue as before.
 
 
Aaron Woolfson   awoolfso@unix1.cc.uop.edu
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 02:11:15 +0100
From: styri@balder.nta.no
Subject: Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud
 
 
upsetter@mcl.ucsb.edu (Jason Hillyard) writes:
 
> I wonder if the long distance companies will ever wake up.  This 
kind
> of crime is only possible because of the utter lack of security
> inherent in calling cards.  [...]
 
It's worrying, that kind of argument. In most cases of calling card
fraud the fraudsters seem to have made some effort. Making it harder
to break the law doesn't make it more wrong to do so, does it? Saying
it's "only possible because of the utter lack of security" is a pretty
one-sided view.  (Not that it's anything wrong with improving 
security.)
 
 
Haakon Styri styri@nta.no
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 13:30:24 GMT
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud
 
 
Cary, NC?  That's in the Raleigh-Durham area, quite far from
Charlotte.  Earlier article from you said he was employed in the
Charlotte switching center.
 
 
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The version I got referred to 
Charlotte.
My source was the {Los Angeles Times} and a couple other places where
raids took place last week. Now I believe the {Chicago Tribune} 
account
which was used in the Computer Underground Digest placed it in Cary,
as did the report in the papers in New York.   PAT]
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 09:20:35 -0400
From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson)
Subject: $50 Million in Quarters?
 
 
> I wonder if the long distance companies will ever wake up.  This 
kind
> of crime is only possible because of the utter lack of security
> inherent in calling cards.  Why are the long distance companies so
> cheap when it comes to implementing secure billing systems?
 
Unfortunately the answer is simple -- the courts have repeatedly 
agreed with
the service providers that *their customers* are responsible for the 
charges.
Thus there is no financial incentive (and some disincentives) for the
providers to do anything.
 
We are just fortunate that some telco's do provide some management as
a part good customer relations. What I would like to know is "if the
telco/gov knew early in the year that numbers had been compromised,
was anything done to notify the people whose numbers were involved
then ?"
 
 
Warmly,
 
Padgett
 
 
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Padgett, what I do not understand and
believe to be wrong about the court rulings you cite is the apparent
conflict with federal regulations pertaining to fraud and misuse of
credit cards generally. To the extent that telephone calling cards are
credit cards -- and they are intended to allow you to pay 'later' --
how can the user be held responsible for more than some minimal
amount -- usually fifty dollars -- in damages?  Federal regulations
pertaining to credit cards are quite clear that the card holder will
not suffer as a result of fraud when the cardholder had nothing to
do with it.    PAT]
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 8:38:33 GMT
From: Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: "$50 Million" Fraud
 
 
While I make no defense of this thievery, and I think this particular
method of stealing LD service is particularly wicked, because the
charging of such phraud calls to legitimate customers' calling card
numbers causes all those thousands of innocent people untold annoyance
and bother to get the call-billing reversed if they notice it, and
their own money if they don't, I always have a problem with the telco
or the prosecutors throwing around these large numbers and claiming
that these are the actual amount of the theft.
 
The "$50 million" cited is what the billing for all these calls would
have been if they had been made legitimately. That is NOT what was
actually stolen.
 
What was stolen was the cost to the company of providing these calls,
not what they would have charged a customer for them. The amount of
theft should be judged at the wholesale level, not the retail level. I
venture to say that the actual amount stolen for a call billed at $10
is actually only a few mills' worth of electricity that MCI paid on
its various utility bills at the sites through which the call 
traveled.
The amount that MCI charges a regular customer for this exact same
call is a largely fictitious number, created with little (if any)
relationship to MCI's actual costs for completing that call.
 
One could claim that some overhead factor should be applied that
amortizes a share of the costs of all the physical plant, the labor
expenses for all MCI employees, the cost of depreciation of the
switches and other equipment, etc.  But this is merely an accounting
exercise -- those costs would all have been incurred whether or not
these stolen calls were made.
 
One could state that these stolen calls increased the calling level to
a point where new additional switches needed to be bought or lines
strung.  If this can be proven to have happened -- that these specific
stolen extra calls increased a service-usage level to that degree in
some specific area(s) -- then I would accept those costs as being
applicable to this theft.  But I doubt that this will be asserted or
proven.  I predict that these stolen calls are subsumed in the sea of
legitimate calls, and did not, in and of themselves, necessitate any
such increased support costs.
 
There ARE other costs that should be charged, though -- all the
expenses incurred by the billing department in answering customer
inquiries about these phraud calls that appeared on their bills, and
the costs involved in reviewing the claims and processing the
reverses.  Each customer so inconvenienced has a claim on the thieves,
too.  A class-action civil suit following the criminal case's
conclusion seems called for, if the defendants, after being found
guilty, have any assets that could be seized.
 
The other factor to consider, if MCI claims that the amount stolen was
the retail price of these calls, is whether or not the calls would
have been made if they had NOT been stolen and thus free to the
caller. If the call really would have been made regardless, and the
caller simply opted to steal it by using a phraudulent calling-card
number, then I accept that the value of the theft is the amount the
caller avoided paying. But I doubt that many of these calls fall into
that category.  I will venture to say that the vast majority of phraud
calls that are made are made simply BECAUSE they are phraud and
therefore free. People call the weather numbers in Australia; they
call international phone-sex lines all over; they make data calls to
some obscure BBS across the country; they make harassing calls to
celebrities or political organizations; etc. -- all of which they do
ONLY because these are "free" calls to them. They would not have made
the call otherwise. MCI would NOT have gotten the income from these
calls made legitimately because the calls would never have been made.
 
This doesn't excuse the theft. The callers are not in any way 
exonerated
by this fact. But it does belie the telco claim of "lost revenue" in
such phraud cases. They would not have had the revenue in any case.
 
So in short, these phreaks and crackers deserve severe penalties. In
today's legal climate, it is doubtful that they'll get it. But let us
all be objectively realistic in evaluating exactly what was stolen and
not encourage the "sound bite" mentality of prosecutors and law
enforcement who love to throw around large numbers to indicate the
severity of a case or to help justify their expenditures at the next
budget hearing of their legislative overseers.
 
 
Will Martin
 
------------------------------
 
End of TELECOM Digest V14 #390
****************************
 

