TELECOM Digest     Fri, 7 Oct 94 15:40:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 391
 
Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson
 
     Chicago Taking Out Payphones (USA Today via Will Martin)
     IBX System (Zanna Martin)
     Question About AMI Modulation (despatie@hookup.net)
     Re: "Sprint Check/160 Days" (DICKTER@delphi.com)
     Re: Area Code Info Needed (Wes Leatherock)
     Re: OSI OM-Related Tools (Herb Calhoun)
     Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud (G. 
Youngblood)
     Re: Roaming Report - SF Bay Area to New Zealand via GTE (Greg 
Youngblood)
 
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 13:55:24 GMT
From: Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: Chicago Taking Out Payphones
 
 
An article on the front page of the Wednesday, Oct 5 94 issue of {USA
Today}:
 
CHICAGO READY TO HANG UP ON CORNER DRUG DEALERS
 
by Debbie Howlett
 
The City Council, in an effort to pull the plug on street corner drug
dealers, today votes on a sweeping ban on pay phones.
 
The measure, proposed by Mayor Richard Daley and widely supported on
the council, would disconnect as many as 15,000 of the 60,000 pay
phones, mainly on the poorer South and West sides.
 
"People are outraged. They see drug dealers using those phones 24 
hours
a day, seven days a week in front of their homes," Daley says.
 
A South Side alderman and Ameritech, largest of 67 companies operating
pay phones in the city, say the idea is superficial and 
disproportionately
affects poor people.
 
While 88% of city residents have phone service, barely one in five
residents in some of the targeted areas do.
 
In those areas, pay phones are lifelines, says Alderman Dorothy 
Tillman.
 
Daley defends the ban as the solution for residents who are fed up 
with
dealers; one group of neighbors counted 72 phones in a ten-block area.
 
"You can get rid of every damn pay phone in the city," Tillman says. 
"It
won't stop drug dealing."
 
*****
 
That issue of {USA Today} also has a supplemental story on page 3A; 
here
are excerpts:
 
BUSY SIGNAL: PHONES AS CRIME CENTERS
 
The pay phone hanging on the wall of the building near Nancy Glover's
home on the West Side seemed oddly out of place.
 
It faced a dark alley and wasn't very well lighted. She couldn't
imagine who would use it. Within a week, she says, eight boys in gang
colors were hanging out for hours, using the pay phone to return pages
from their beepers.
 
"It was a real problem," Glover says.
 
  .... [Deleted paragraphs that essentially repeated the first story.]
 
Other measures aimed at the pay phone problem haven't been successful.
Restrictions on incoming calls, tougher rules for phone companies,
phones that don't take coins at night -- nothing curbed the crowds
that gathered.
 
Some of the dealers' favorite spots even seem tailored to their 
purpose:
a bank of seven or eight phones set up over a vacant lot that offers 
an
unobstructed view of police patrols.
 
Daley's "ban" won't affect 75% of the city's 60,000 pay phones --
those inside an office, store, or other building. It will, however,
allow the city to regulate phones on or overhanging public property.
 
But the pay phone ban has several opponents -- including phone 
companies.
 
Ameritech, the largest phone company in Illinois, stands to lose 3,000
phones and 80% of its pay phone revenues.
 
[Concluding paragraphs cover statements from the alderman quoted in
the first story and from the Ameritech spokesman to the effect that
this action won't affect crime.]
 
                              *****
 
[Editorial comment: Will this become known as the "Cellular Phone
Windfall Act of 1994" in the future? Surely drug dealers can afford
cellphones and they'll just switch over to those if they need phone
communications ... I've never quite figured out why drug dealers need
to make phone calls in the first place. It never struck me as a 
business
conducted by phone-order ... :-) I always thought you needed to go in
person with cash money. Can you call up and order by phone with your
Visa or MC now? And how do drug dealers use beepers? Do they make 
house
calls to deliver drugs like the pizza man? :-)
 
Pat, please add a follow-up that tells what the result of the vote 
was,
since this is local to you there ...]
 
 
Regards,
 
Will
 
 
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The final result was a hodge-podge; a
stupid compromise which will help no one and hurt lots of people. The
Chicago City Council has always been known for its corruption and
stupid members, so this latest thing is not a big surprise. Now they
have decided to ban public phones which are *outside, but on private
property*, such as convenience store parking lots, etc. As the article
points out, only about one in five residences on the west side of
Chicago have private phone service. Too bad for them, eh?
 
Question:  How do you tell when a formerly great city is rapidly on
the way to its death?  Easy ... that's the time when the politicians
and lawyer-judges become even more oppressive toward the few stable
and tax-paying citizens still remaining. No industries want to set
up factories and offices in your town?  Then respond by taxing the
hell out of the ones who do remain and putting all kinds of oppresive
regulations in place against them. No large chain of stores wants to
operate on the south and west sides of Chicago because of the high
rate of very violent crime?  That's cool ... just take the Korean
merchants who are willing to operate there and oppress them severely
instead; drive them out of business by government fiat and all kinds
of cock-eyed regulations even the lawyers don't understand. Not that
many parents left who want their kids to go to a public school if 
there
is any possible way to avoid it?  Don't worry, just take the few 
bright
and intelligent children who are still in public schools and force 
them
to be bussed ten miles each way through city traffic to a penitentiary
masquerading as a public school on the other side of town. The longer
the bus ride each day the less time there will be to spend in class
and the more opportunity for the bus driver to sell them drugs and
sexually molest them. Their parents will learn soon enough.
 
It appears voter registration this time around is at an all-time low.
Apparently only a few fools here are bothering to vote any longer. For
the past couple months the newspapers and politicians have been 
exhorting
people to register to vote, but it appears less than half the eligible
voters have done so this time. Watching the political scene in Chicago
is such a gas ... its only a matter of time until the city collapses.
*GOD*, I am so glad I moved away a year ago.  I would never move back 
to
Chicago for any reason, even if I am only 20 miles or so north. I have
to have a decent and safe place for our five-year old to live, and
Chicago just won't do.
 
So the payphone situation?  What else is old?  Just the dumbest (many
have little formal education) and most criminal (a dozen members 
convicted
and sent to prison in the past decade) bunch anywhere -- the Chicago
City Council -- doing its thing. Not to worry though; there will still
be outside payphones at the Chicago Housing Authority slums and the
Transit Authority stations. Even though technically 'private 
property',
the lawyers for the Housing Atrocity and the Transit Atrocity did a
better job of sucking up to the Council than the lawyers for the
Korean Merchants Association or the Chicagoland Association of Black
McDonald's Restaurant Owners. Some outside payphones on private
property will still remain if you say pretty-please and you allow them
to have one hand in your pocket while the middle finger on their other
hand is inserted somewhere else at the same time.  PAT]
 
------------------------------
 
From: zanna@problem_with_inews_domain_file.et.tudelft.nl (Zanna 
Martin)
Subject: IBX System
Date: 7 Oct 1994 18:13:50 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical 
Engineering
 
 
Anyone have any info on an IBX system by Intecom Inc?  I am attempting
to interface a modem this system and understand that an interface is
available for $$$, however I want to do it myself ... any technical
specs or schematic diagrams would be appreciated.
 
 
Thanks,
 
Tom
 
------------------------------
 
From: despatie@hookup.net
Subject: Question About AMI Modulation
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 13:50:42 GMT
Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, Oakville, Ontario, 
CANADA
 
 
Does anyone have any information on AMI type modulation used on
digital lines?
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 1994 11:39:01 EDT
From: DICKTER@delphi.com
Subject: Re: "Sprint Check/160 Days"
 
 
As a copywriter assigned to a major L.D. account, I'm all too familiar
with checks and their role in acqauiring new customers.
 
Basically, no one can prevent a customer from switching to another
lond distance copany -- on matter how scary the LOA language on the
back of the check sounds.  While these devices may sound is (as) if
drafetred (drafted) my (by) a legal SWAT team, they are merely
marketing attempts to keep churn levels douwn.  Since AT&T fired the
first check salvo two years ago, the check wars continue to breed a
climate of switchers and money-seeking treasure hunters.  And who can
blame them?  You get a check from one company, cash it, and two kweeks
later you receive another check from the competition.  You cash that,
and the process starts anew.
 
The result has been an eroding base of loyal customers -- and an
unwillingness of customers to stay with one company and see how much
they can save on savings programs., lower rates, etc.  For marketers
like myself, checks have served to frustrate long-term strategies and
prevent other messages from entering the prospect's decision-making
process.  And while customers may think cahsing the check is a smart
morve, the irony is that everyone (including them) ends up paying for
it through more promo dollars being thrown against more and more check
mailings.
 
So what's the bottom line?  It's time to stop using cash as the
ultimate carrot-on-stick marketing tool -- and time to destroy the
climate of switchers costing l.d. companies millins in misspent promo
dollars and switching fees.  In a better world, customers would choose
a l.d. company based on benefits and savings -- then leave if those
benefits were not begin provided or of (if) another companyu promises
even o(more.)  But that cannot happen until customers are refocused to
look for comparitive strength and not the largest dollar amount on the
"ay Pay to the order of" line.  Ang again, no one can stop you from
switching again -- but can you blame Sprint from trying to keep you
around for a few months in the desparate hope that they can recover
some of the expenses incurred in getting you through their door?
 
 
 
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are correct that they cannot
prevent you from switching carriers. What they can do, if it seems
cost-effective and not counter-productive is sue you for breaking
your promise to remain with them for some set period of time.   PAT]
 
------------------------------
 
From: Wes.Leatherock@f2001.n147.z1.fidonet.org (Wes Leatherock)
Date: 06 Oct 94 21:11:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Area Code Information Needed
Organization: FidoNet Nameserver/Gateway
 
 
  Quoting Joseph Singer (joseph.singer@stage.com):
 
          ... [text deleted] ...
 
  > battery central offices.  Also even the places that had DDD had
  > different procedures to access it.  In many places such as New 
York
  > and New Jersey you would just dial the telephone number or an area
  > code plus phone number whereas most people dialed "1" plus a 
number
  > within an area code or 1 plus area code and phone number.  Other
  > places had you dial 112 before the area codes while yet other
  > companies (mostly independents) made you dial extra digits.
 
         When Sherman, Texas, (served by GTE) originally went to DDD,
you dialed 70 (seven zero) plus number or area code and number.
 
Quoting Robert Casey:
 
> Talking about area code history, I think NJ was all 201 a long time
> ago. 201 is the lowest area code number, probably due to the fact 
that
> there many Bell Labs sites in NJ, and probably the place where the 
area
> code concept was developed was one of those.
 
          The area codes were originally assigned on the basis of the
largest cities getting the lowest area codes.  This was in the days of
rotary dial, so a zero is actually ten, and 201 was not a low number.
 
          The lowest numbered area code (takes the fewest dial pulses)
is 212 (211 was, of course, reserved for calling the long distance
operator).  New York City's area code was and is 212, of course.
 
          The next lowest numbers are 312 (which is Chicago) and 213
(which is Los Angeles).
 
Quoting Bill Garfield (bill.garfield@yob.com):
 
> Same here, except is was as late as 1966.  I was working in
> Scottsbluff, NE and carrying on a "LONG DISTANCE" relationship with 
a
> young lady in Hoopeston, IL.  It only took a few times calling 
before I
> too was able to give the "route" to the LD operator... "2-1-7 
<pause>
> 2-8-3, <pause> 2-1-7 Plus 0-2-8 and the same for operators".  Life
> certainly seemed simpler back then. :-)
 
          The usual way this was given, I think, was (for example)
"2-1-7 Plus 0-2-8 and the same for operators (pause) MARK 2-1-7 
<pause>
2-8-3."
 
          The originating operator actually dialed 217+028 and this
sent the call to the Hoopeston operator, who would manually plug into
the jack for the desired number or the desired operator (such as
Directory Assistance).
 
          217-283 was the assigned prefix for Hoopeston, and the
operator marked the toll ticket (done by hand) with a conductive
pencil in the bubbles for those numbers so it would be machine
readable.  Even though the prefix was assigned, Hoopeston was,
obviously, not dialable as a manual office.
 
          If there was not a prefix assigned (either theoretical or
future, the instruction would be "Mark 'Other Place'."  (There was a
bubble so named, and that would kick the ticket out to be rated and
billed manually in the Telco accounting office.)
 
          There were places that the operator could dial but not the
customer, for any one of a number of reasons, most commonly that there
were not enough incoming trunks to meet the DDD standard for all-
trunks-
busy during the busy hour.  In this case the instruction would be
simply "2-1-7 Plus 283 PLUS."
 
          And there were various other combinations possible, 
including
even the operator office being in another state (and with a different
area code).
 
 
Wes Leatherock
wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu
wes.leatherock@tranquil.torii.starship.com
 
------------------------------
 
From: calhoun@mot.com (Herb Calhoun)
Subject: Re: OSI OM-Related Tools
Organization: Motorola
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 18:23:07 GMT
 
 
In article <telecom14.381.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, andrew lavigne 
<alavigne@bnr.
ca> wrote:
 

> I've been looking for information on the availability of OSI Object
> Model Management-related toolkits and compilers (ASN.1/GDMO 
compilers,
> object class inheritance display tools, browsers, etc).
 
> Does anyone know of such tools and/or where I can get more 
information
> on them?
 
DSET provides a GDMO/ASN.1 raw compiler, as does RETIX.
 
------------------------------
 
Subject: Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud
From: zeta@tcscs.com (Gregory Youngblood)
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 94 09:46:07 PDT
Organization: The Complete Solution
 
 
TELECOM Digest Editor noted:
 
> In certain other prominent e-journals on the Internet, we have read
> in recent days that computer crime is not nearly the serious matter
> the government claims it to be. It sounds to me like the sneak-
thievery
> of a hundred thousand plus calling card numbers and fifty million
> dollars in phreak phone calls is serious enough. We have long known
> about telco employees who themselves are as corrupt as the day is
> long; who think nothing of taking bribes for providing confidential
> information about their employer and its customers. But most of it
> to-date has been petty ante stuff; a few dollars under the table for
> a non-pub phone number, or maybe a hackerphreak who gets a job with
> telco then uses information and technology at his (legitimate) 
disposal
> to cover his own tracks where obscene/harassing calls are concerned.
> But a hundred thousand calling cards and fifty million dollars in
> traffic????  At what point are certain publishers/editors on the
> Internet going to wake up? Computer crime is growing expotentially.
> I think it is time to have another massive crackdown, similar to
> Operation Sun Devil a few years ago.  Let's start getting really
> tough on hackers and phreaks.
 
In this avenue I have to say that while I agree with the idea
expressed here, lets not get carried away.  Operation Sun Devil did
it's good in that it caught and shut down a lot of hackers and
phreaks ... but not without its mistakes.
 
I notice you say similar to Operation Sun Devil.  In what manner?
 
If your going after phreaks (and some hackers who go along with the
phreaking), then why not seed their files with bogus calling card
numbers that various carriers agree to allow for this type of usage
with the intent of letting the phreaks distribute that number.  Then
after a perioud of time, arrange a large scale bust arresting all
those utilizing those seeded calling card numbers.
 
In fact, why not take some of the known calling card numbers that have
already been stolen, keep them in operation (though not for that
customer but for this very purpose) so that way it adds another
element to the sting ... actual live card numbers switched over from a
customer as a sting rather than cutting the number off.
 
It would seem that doing this would add even more risk to the phreaks
since they would never know at what point the calling card was 
switched
over etc.
 
Perhaps I am just showing my own ignorance in the whole scene ... but
large scale busts like Sun Devil will also pull in innocent people
likely.  I dont recall if Sun Devil was the operation that started the
whole Jackson Games ordeal or if it was something else, but in any
large scale operation like your proposing, the net will also fall
around innocent people.  Especially if the officers involved are not
trained properly and dont really know what they are going after, which
in high-tech crimes seems to be the case some of the time.  That was
particularly the problem with the Jackson Games mess ... (btw, how did
that end?  I saw a report or two from the trial, but I don't recall
getting the final verdict and such ...)
 
The large-scale computer crimes like this one are the ones the medias
get a hold of and glamorize and exagerate the risks and potentials to
mass audiences ... no wonder a lot of people are still afraid of
computers. In this case, 100,000s of calling cards.  Even from the
glamorized reports of other capers, none seem to be as large-scale as
this operation was.  These large scale operations seem to be somewhat
rare.  But at least this one is shut down now.
 
While I will agree computer crime is getting to be more of a problem
and is growing, I also urge caution in how things are done to resolve
it, especially in the spotlight of the media, and the public.  Not to
hide anything, but to prevent politicians from trying to protect us
from ourselves in such a way that will hinder networks such as the
Internet and others.  With the information superhighway the buzzword
in DC and with high press coverage of the exception rather than the
norm, it can easily create more hassles and problems for (what I hope
is) the majority of honest ones on the net, limiting or cutting off
access entirely resources currently available.
 
In short, I'm just urging caution in finding a solution to the problem
of growing computer crime.
 
------------------------------
 
Subject: Re: Roaming Report - SF Bay Area to New Zealand via GTE
From: zeta@tcscs.com (Gregory Youngblood)
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 94 10:04:21 PDT
Organization: The Complete Solution
 
 
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An interesting new form of cellular
> fraud came to my attention recently. It seems that many/most 
cellular
> companies handle roamers by assigning them a temporary phone number
> to use while in their territory. If you subscribe to a service such
> as 'follow me' or Fast Track as Ameritech calls it, then when you
> activate that feature in another city, the carrier in that city
> assigns you a number and tells your home carrier what number is
> to be used for call-forwarding purposes. Well ... it seems like some
> carriers use the same old numbers over and over again for roamers
> in their territory, and on those numbers for the sake of 
administrative
> convenience, the ESN is not checked or verified like it would be for
> their own customers with calls to/from their own numbers. So some
> people have found that if you learn the block of numbers used by,
> let's say, Cellular One Chicago over and over for roamers here,
> all you need to do is program your own phone to one of those numbers
> and make/receive calls with impunity at no charge.
>
> The same gag used to work with Radio Shack's cellular demo line. All
> RS stores had a cellular phone number they could use to demo their
> products. Any phone in their stock would work for the simple reason
> the carrier did not verify the ESN ... how could they if the dealer
> had dozens of phones in stock to be displayed, demoed and hopefully
> sold?  Of course since any phone in their stock could make calls 
when
 
[Portion of R.S. summary deleted]
 
> So phreaks began learning the phone numbers (a) used by the carriers
> for day-to-day temporary assignment to roamers, (b) used for 
administrative
> and testing purposes by the carrier itself, and (c) used by very 
large
> dealers like Radio Shack for demonstrations.  Needless to say, a 
good
> time was had by all. There were limitations on the numbers which 
could
> be dialed -- not technical limits, but certainly pragmatic 
considerations.
> Radio station request lines, hotel switchboards, pay stations, etc; 
those
> were all okay but never a call to a private residence or your home.
> After all, when 'they' got a bellyfull of it, and got hit with loads
> of long-distance and international calls, 'they' started auditing 
the
> bills a little closer. Would you want 'them' to call your mother and
> ask her who she spoke to in Kansas City on a cellular phone a month
> ago?  "... Just an error in our bookkeeping ma'm, we are trying to
> straighten out the billing and get the bill to the right person ..."
> and mom replies, "Oh!  You must mean my son!  .... such a good boy!
> and so smart with computers and telephones .... " ... "Thank you
> madam, that's all we need to know ...".  None the less, I think the
> scam is still going on where the roamer temporary numbers and the
> carrier admin numbers are concerned.     PAT]
 
I have to jump in here ... it isn't often that I feel a need to jump
in and clarify certain points.
 
While I am not well versed on software and switches beyond a couple, I
can tell you about the systems I've worked on and worked with.
 
Your first part refers to the Temporary Directory Number that a
roamers MIN (Mobile Identification Number) is assigned to in certain
types of automated roaming, such as Follow Me Roaming or NationLink
etc.  I won't go into some details in case the problem is more severe
than I personally realize, but suffice it to say, when the TDN is
assigned for a MIN by the automated roaming system, and ESN is usually
assigned as well.  In essence in the market where the phone is being
used, that MIN is activated like a regular home subscriber, except
that the direct dial phone number (or the TDN) is not the same as the
cellular's MIN.  If you were able to get your TDN you could just as
easily give people in the market your roaming in your TDN and receive
calls just as a home sub in that market without having to pay the long
distance charges to your home carrier for forwarding your calls as
well.
 
In the switches I work with, the ESN is also included so that, just
like a regular home sub, the ESN is checked with that MIN.  Also, when
a new number is activated the new MIN's ESN is included in the
activation.  [Just to be on the safe side I will be checking my
switches to verify that this is indeed happening ...]
 
And, in my opinion if the carriers are not utilizing the ESN when
assigning TDN's, they are asking for a whole can of worms, and I'm
surprized it didn't get caught sooner ...
 
The next item you mentioned was Radio Shack..
 
In '90 or '91 Radio Shack implemented the rule- ONLY ONE DEMO NUMBER 
PER
STORE. Seems managers were getting free portables and free service.
The stores where I knew the managers told me about the switch over and
how they couldn't sell the one phone they had on display because that
was their only demo number.  I also know that in the markets I've been
around, the carrier would not activate a "zeroed" out ESN no matter
what the agent/dealer wanted. Perhaps if the agent/dealer agreed ot
assume all liability created by opening up the number they might ... 
but
still I think you see the security risks here.  I've since moved away
and have really not kept in touch with these people, so it is possible
that in some markets or with Tandy's influence, some carriers opened
up the ESN ... I would sure hope not.
 
Lastly, I don't know how many carriers still allow zeroed ESN for
their administrative calls.  I know that I don't know of any 
personally.
 
For a while this was the case, but that was four to six years ago and
since then those were the first security holes closed when fraud 
started
to become a larger problem for the carrier.
 
Perhaps I misunderstood ... I thought the initial message was started
out as what is being done right now by the cellular phreaks out there.
If not, then I just wasted some bandwidth.
 
The TDN problem is a new one to me, and I will go and double-check my
systems to verify it operates the way it is supposed to, but beyond
that, the zeroed (sp?) ESN activated in a switch is virtually
nonexistant (unless a tech or switch person went against a company's
policy??)
 
 
Greg
 
 
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was three or four years ago that
Cellular One here in Chicago started cleaning up that mess. They had
a whole bunch of numbers with zeroed out ESNs in the 312-659 range
for several years. I guess they got eaten alive like many other
carriers and found out the hard way. Of course, 312-659 was the very
first cellular prefix used here, and that was/is where Cell One 
had/has
all their own admin, testing and customer service numbers. In our
local Radio Shack District here (Chicago North) they tightened up
on the scam a few years ago, but I don't know about other Radio Shack
Districts. Cellular carriers still leaving that back door open for
their own convenience should at least review it and make sure the
fraud level is tolerable.    PAT]
 
------------------------------
 
End of TELECOM Digest V14 #391
****************************
 

