Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr16/tc15_016.zip/TC15-016.TXT

Text File | 1995-01-22 | 30KB | 734 lines

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 9 Jan 95 16:52:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 16

Inside This Issue:                         Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd (Mark Robert Smith)
    New: Telecom Policy On-line (Jeff Richards)
    EtherFRAD for T1? (Pete Kruckenberg)
    Sprint and Calls Within Your Service Area (Javier Henderson)
    Phone Rates (Paul Robinson)
    Vice President Al Gore to Speak on Telecom at Summit Jan. 9 (Nigel
Allen)
    FCC Proposes To Fine AT&T $1,000,000 For Comm Act Violations (Alan
Boritz)
    Phone Rates From Israel (Jean B. Sarrazin)
    PABX/IVR/Computer Integration Help Wanted (Alan Meier)
    Hayes Optima VS DEC SERVER 200 Revised (John Stewart Pinnow)
    1-900 = $100,000 Fraud (James Bellaire)

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 to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

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: [e-mail] (Mark Robert Smith)
Subject: Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 08:34:39 EST
Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ



Here's the press release, fresh off the Bell Atlantic WWW Server
(http://ba.com/):


January 4, 1995                     Steve Fleischer(BAM) 908-306-7539
                                         Brian Wood(BAM) 908-306-7508
                                        Kim Ancin(NYNEX) 914-365-7573
                                       Jim Gerace(NYNEX) 914-365-7712

     LEADING CELLULAR CARRIERS JOIN FORCES TO PROTECT CUSTOMERS
                   FROM BECOMING PHONE FRAUD VICTIMS

BEDMINSTER, NJ, AND ORANGEBURG, NY -- Two of the nation's largest
wireless carriers are teaming up in a unique program to prevent their
customers from being victimized by criminals who steal cellular
service.

The new effort combines a Personal Identification Number (PIN) code
system recently pioneered by NYNEX Mobile Communications in New York
City with a new Fraud Protection Zone technique developed by Bell
Atlantic Mobile.

Starting January 9, Bell Atlantic Mobile will designate a Fraud
Protection Zone restricting calling throughout the greater New York
City area for its customers from Washington, DC; Baltimore;
Pittsburgh; and greater Philadelphia, including Delaware and southern
New Jersey.

Customers from those markets who want to use their phones at standard
"roaming" rates in New York City must first contact Bell Atlantic
Mobile by dialing 211 from their cellular phone.  After they provide
proper identification and select a PIN code, the company will
deactivate the fraud zone restriction.

Once the PIN feature is activated, it gives customers protection from
fraud whenever they use it to place calls in New York, their home
market, or any market with a PIN system.

The Fraud Protection Zone will not be activated for the company's
northern New Jersey customers, because New York City is part of their
local calling area.  Since customers who travel frequently into New
York City are at risk from cloning, Bell Atlantic Mobile strongly
recommends that northern New Jersey customers sign up for the PIN
system.  Eventually all new customers will be required to use PINs.

Bell Atlantic Mobile will start notifying its customers of the new
program today.  However, those who are not aware of it will still be
able to place calls in New York with a credit card, until they sign
up for the PIN. They will not receive incoming calls.

"By combining our fraud protection systems, Bell Atlantic and NYNEX
offer customers the best of both worlds," said Rick Conrad, Bell
Atlantic Mobile executive vice president and chief operating officer.
"We protect Bell Atlantic customers by making their phone numbers
difficult to clone, or copy, for use in New York, while providing easy
access to the New York cellular system through the PIN feature."

Fraud costs the cellular industry more than $1 million per day.  By
teaming together, Conrad said, the carriers reduce its impact on
customers. "A customer who has been cloned experiences a great deal of
inconvenience. This is not a victimless crime," he added.

"We demonstrated with our unique PIN code initiative, that the use of
state-of-the-art technology can prevent the theft of cellular
service," said Cynthia J. White, NYNEX Mobile executive vice president
and chief operating officer. "PIN codes, and the pursuit and
prosecution of those who commit these crimes, have put a significant
crimp in the illegal business of cloning.

"The NYNEX/Bell Atlantic effort sends yet another message to phone
cloners that carriers can and will work together to protect the public
from this crime."

Just as PIN systems increase security for banking and long distance
telephone customers, the PIN feature will severely limit the possibil-
ity of cellular phone numbers being cloned and used in any city where
carriers use PIN technology.

In the rare instance that they are cloned, customers only need to call
their home carrier and receive a new PIN to restore service.  By con-
trast, customers not using PINs must bring their phones back to a
carrier or dealer for a new phone number, notify business associates
and friends of the number change, or even modify business cards and
stationery.

With a PIN system, customers simply dial the desired phone number,
press "send," enter their PIN code, and press "send" again.  The net-
work then completes the call.  There is no extra charge and the
feature will not affect commonly used cellular services like voice
mail or call waiting.  Calls to 911, 611 and 411 do not require a PIN.

Bell Atlantic and NYNEX have announced that they will combine their
cellular operations in the mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Southeast, and
Southwest. The proposed company will serve over two million customers
and be a strong national force in the wireless industry, with 55
million potential customers in seven of the top 20 cellular markets.

The companies expect to close the transaction in the second quarter
of 1995.
                              ###
                  -------------------------------

What they don't tell you is that the exclusion zone includes parts of
Northern New Jersey, specifically the Jersey City switch which goes as
far north as Secaucus and south to New Brunswick.  They also fail to
mention that once you get a PIN number, you must use it to make all
calls, even those outside the zone.

I'm really disappointed that they've imposed this on the customer
OUTSIDE the area, while allowing those in the area to make calls
without a PIN.  At least that's how I read the release, though a
friend who has B.A. told me before this was announced that he had to
use a PIN.

Why don't they start spending the money they spent on ECPA lobbying to
invent a more secure system?!?!?!?


Mark Smith    Mercerville, NJ

------------------------------

From: Jeff Richards <[e-mail]>
Subject: New: Telecom Policy On-line
Date: 9 Jan 1995 13:19:37 GMT
Organization: Capital Area Internet Service [e-mail] 703-448-4470


The Alliance for Competitive Communications (formerly the MFJ Task
Force) announced today that it has named former USTA Chairman Gary
McBee to coordinate the seven regional Bell Companies' 1995 effort to
reform telecommunications laws.

Information about this announcement can be found at the newly-revamped
<bell.com>.

        http://bell.com
        gopher://bell.com

Additions include:

        - Pointers to recently-added legislative resources;
        - An archive of the 103rd Congress Telecommunications actions;
        - A new, easier-to-follow format;
        - A listserver for individuals who want to receive regular
updates
          on telecommunications legislation. To subscribe send a
message to:
          [e-mail]
          with the message:

          subscribe bell firstname lastname

<bell.com> will be updated on a regular basis for individuals wanting
to
follow telecommunications reform legislation.

Please feel free to reply to me with any comments.  Please address
questions to: <[e-mail]>.


Thanks,


Jeff Richards
Alliance for Competitive Communications |   Internet:
[e-mail]
http://bell.com     gopher://bell.com

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Pete Kruckenberg)
Subject: EtherFRAD for T1?
Date: 9 Jan 1995 06:57:20 -0700
Organization: DahlinSmithWhite, Inc.


US West told me they sell a (Codex) "Bandguard" Ethernet FRAD
(Ethernet <=> frame-relay) with DSU for 56k frame-relay service, but
not for T1. I'm curious to know if there is such a thing for T1
frame-relay. Also, what has people's experience been with using
EtherFRADs with a Unix IP router vs. CSU/DSU and "normal" router?


Thanks,

Pete Kruckenberg    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Subject: Sprint and Calls Within Your Service Area
From: [e-mail] (Javier Henderson)
Date: 6 Jan 95 16:54:34 PST
Organization: Medical Laboratory Network; Ventura, CA


I just got off the phone with Sprint's customer service. Their special
offer of one cent per minute for calls within your service area
applies
to all of Sprint customers, regarldess of what calling plan you're on.

You need to dial 10333, but considering the savings, I don't mind. The
charge is the same regardless of mileage.

The offer will expire on Feb 28, 1995.

I'm not associated with Sprint, other than as a mostly satisfied
customer.
The above applies to residential lines in Southern California. Other
areas
within California may have the same deal, you'd better check.


Javier Henderson (JH21)    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 09 Jan 1995 01:23:52 EST
Subject: Phone Rates
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>


Eric Naggum writes:

> I'm covering Norway's telecommunication privatization effort for
> a local newspaper, and need some information that I have not been
> able to collect from Telenor (the newly renamed Norwegian
> telephone company) or other PTT's directly. Please mail me
> answers -- I'll post the article here after it has been published.

> 1.  Local, analog, single-pair leased lines, i.e., the basic local
loop for
>     ordinary telephone service, only now as a leased line to another
>     subscriber in the same CO.  I'm looking to compare the cost
>     of acquisition and rent for one year.

Last time I checked, which was about four years ago before Internet
accessibility was affordable, if I wanted to get a 64K line from my
site, say to Suranet which is at the University of Maryland, College
Park, the rate quoted from C&P telephone was US $115 plus $4 per mile,
per month.

Note in the rates below, these rates do not include taxes which
probably range in the 2% figure, and installation of phone lines is
extra.

> 3.  24-hour local phone call, i.e., an ordinary phone call to a
> subscriber in the same CO as yourself -- one call that lasts 24
hours
> straight on a weekday. A 24-hour call is used to obtain comparable
> numbers across all kinds of reduced rates.

Residential service here comes in three flavors, per call, timed per
call
and unlimited.  Business can get per call and timed per call.

Unlimited service costs a residential customer about US $20 a month
plus taxes, and allows unlimited calls of unlimited duration between
phones in the same service area.  Here in the Washington Metropolitan
area, figure that as being roughly a circle extending for 20 miles in
each direction from the Washington Monument.  In essence, the calling
area here is: All of Washington DC, all of Prince Georges county in
Maryland, the lower half of Montgomery County in Maryland, All of
Fairfax and Arlington Counties in Virginia plus the independent
cities, as far as Dulles Airport in Chantilly, VA.

People who live in the Maryland suburbs have extended local service
outside this area, so I can call parts of Gaithersburg MD as a local
call that someone in Northern Virginia would have to pay as a
short-distance toll call.  Someone in Northern Virginia will have
extended reach into Virginia, of course.

On all local area calls, if one doesn't have unlimited service, the
rate is either 9.0c for residential and 9.9c for business for each
call placed, of unlimited connection time.  In theory you could pay
$20 for two business phone lines, place a call between them and keep
the line up all month for around $40 or so, as opposed to paying much
more for a dedicated line.

I changed one of my lines from residential to commercial service.  The
Commercial rate is around US $19.00 a month plus taxes.

If you take timed service, the rate is 1.3c for the connection, and 1c
for each minute after the first minute.  100c = US $1.  You can do the
math for the local currency there using current conversion rates.

A residential customer can get service where he gets 65 call units
included in his bill for $8.50 a month plus taxes.  As an example of
net
costs, for three phone lines in my house each having 65 call units (a
call
unit being one phone call of unlimited length), the cost is US $55 a
month
to have three phone lines and an aggregate of 195 call units a month,
then
9.0c each after 195, if I ever use that many.  (My rate is higher
because
I have a number of optional services including a virtual telephone
number,
call waiting and three-way calling on one of my lines.)  I have
routinely
spent 6 hour calls on the phone to my Internet service provider
reading
and writing mail and news, and downloading files gotten via FTP.

These numbers are meaningless unless you have value of money figures.
My
brother has an ordinary job as a cashier at a drugstore chain, he
makes
$5.50 each hour, and works 40 hours a week (and it took him two years
to
get to that rate; "minimum wage" here is $4.50 per hour if I remember
correctly.)  A 16oz bottle of soda here is about 75c, a loaf of bread
about 65c to  $1.25 depending on what one buys, a pound of hamburger
about $1.65, a gallon of milk about US $2.40.

In Long Beach, California when I was there seven years ago, a local
call
for a business number cost the customer 5c for each five minutes or
fraction thereof, e.g. a five minute and one second call was 10c.

Outdoor Public Coin telephones here are 25c per call, untimed.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 03:10:25 -0500
Subject: Vice President Al Gore to Speak on Telecom at Summit Jan. 9
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Organization: Internex Online


Here is a press release from U.S. Vice President Al Gore.  I
downloaded the press release from the PR On-Line BBS in Maryland at
410-363-0834. I do not work for the U.S. government.

Vice President Gore to Give Keynote at Federal-State-Local Telecom
Summit Jan. 9

   News Advisory:

·

     Vice President Al Gore will give the keynote address at a
conference of federal, state, and local officials on the role of the
federal government in promoting competition, lowering prices,
increasing
choices and achieving universal service in telecommunications
services.  He will join other officials at all levels of government
from across the country to discuss these telecommunications issues.

     The Vice President will speak at 9 a.m. (ET) at the Department of
Commerce Auditorium, 14th and Constitution Ave, NW.  The Vice
President's
speech is OPEN PRESS.

    The Annenberg Washington Program and the Administration's
Information Infrastructure Task Force are sponsoring the day-long
conference.  The morning session of the summit will be open to the
public and the press.  In addition to the Vice President Gore, Members
of Congress, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, Federal Cmmunications
Commission Chairman Reed Hundt, and elected and appointed state and
local telecommunications officials also will participate including
representatives from the National Association of Counties, National
Black Caucus of State Legislators, the National League of Cities and
the United States Conference of Mayors.

     Media who would like more information about press coverage
should contact Stephanie Schoumacher at the Department of Commerce
202-482-1551.

------------------------------

Subject: FCC Proposes To Fine AT&T $1,000,000 For Comm Act Violations
From: drharry![e-mail] (Alan Boritz)
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 95 00:05:30 EST
Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - [phone]


 From ftp.fcc.gov:

NEWS Report No. CC 95-2            COMMON CARRIER ACTION January 4,
1995

 FCC PROPOSES $1 MILLION FORFEITURE AGAINST AT&T
   FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO RESELLERS

     The Commission has notified AT&T of its apparent liability for
forfeiture in the amount of $1,000,000 for violating the
Communications
Act by failing to provide service to three reseller customers who
requested service under an AT&T contract tariff.  The Commission
additionally has directed AT&T to show cause why it should not be
required to furnish the service requested to GE Communications
Systems, Inc. and Public Service Enterprises, Inc.  within 30 days of
the release of the Commission's Order.  The third reseller customer
has informed the Commission that it no longer wishes to obtain service
under that contract tariff.

      The Communications Act requires common carriers to furnish
interstate communication service upon reasonable request.  The
Commission found that, although three resellers ordered service under
AT&T's Contract Tariff Number 383 in August and September of 1993,
AT&T has not yet delivered service to the two reseller customers who
still wish to receive service, nor has it provided a satisfactory
reason for its delay in providing the service.  The third reseller
customer never received service under the contract tariff, and
withdrew its request in late June 1994.

     The Commission has admonished carriers in the past to make all
efforts to provide a requested service, and states further in the
Order that "[t]his admonition is particularly relevant when an
important Commission policy, such as our resale requirements, is
thwarted by a carrier's refusal to provide service."  The Commission
has previously stated that unrestricted resale of communications
services provides a valuable stimulus to competition, by creating
incentives for carriers to offer services at prices that more closely
reflect the underlying cost of providing the service.  The
unrestricted
resale policy also reduces the likelihood of undue discrimination in
the marketplace.

     The Commission stated that AT&T is apparently liable for a
forfeiture of the statutory maximum of $1,000,000 because of the
apparently intentional and continuing nature of the apparent violation
of the Communications Act. Pursuant to Commission rules, AT&T must
either pay the proposed forfeiture within thirty days, or file a
response showing why the proposed forfeiture should not be paid or
should be reduced.

     Action by the Commission, December 30, 1994, by Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order to Show Cause (FCC
94-359).  Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Barrett, Ness and Chong, with
Commissioner Quello concurring in part and dissenting in part.

        -FCC-

     News Media contact:  Susan Lewis Sallet and Audrey Spivack at
(202)
418-0500.
     Common Carrier Bureau contacts: Donna Lampert at [phone]
and Debra
Sabourin at [phone].

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 11:03:48 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Jean B Sarrazin)
Subject: Phone Rates From Israel


Would anyone know the phone rates from Israel to the US, Canada, UK,
and
Argentina?


Thanks!

Jean B Sarrazin    Ekkosys Communications BV   Amsterdam

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Alan Meier)
Subject: PABX/IVR/Computer Integration Help Wanted
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 1995 21:42:18 +1100
Organization: Suzanne Paul (Australia) Pty Ltd


We are an inbound Telemarketing organization and I have been charged
with the responsibility of putting together a system that will allow
our Unix based database application work in concert with both a PABX
and IVR equipment.I need some advice as to whether I am making the
right equipment choice or not and I was hoping that someone with more
knowledge than my own limited experience with Telepony equipment may
be able to assist me.

The PABX I have chosen is the NEX 7400 series as it seemed the only
PABX that had a decent computer interface into the PABX. I have also
looked at the voicemail systems and had settled on teh DECVox system
although it does seem rather expensive they are asking 25,000
Australian dollars for an eight port VoiceMail/IVR System.

Could someone please advise me as to whether my choice in equipment is
wise and if not what equipment should I be considering.

Thanks in advance to all those who reply to me.


Hoping for some relies,

Alan Meier

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Stewart Pinnow)
Subject: Hayes Optima VS DEC SERVER 200 Revised
Date: 9 Jan 1995 03:23:30 GMT
Organization: Tmoh Research, Milwaukee, WI


Well, I have tried with or without autobaud enabled and with autobaud
enable
I have modems seeking a weird DTE:

Port 3:                                Server: SERV02

Character Size:            8           Input Speed:        4800
Flow Control:            XON           Output Speed:       4800
Parity:                 None           Modem Control:   Enabled

Access:                Local           Local Switch:       None
Backwards Switch:       None           Name:             PORT_6
Break:              Disabled           Session Limit:         4
Forwards Switch:        None           Type:               Soft

Now the port works, the other modem connects at 19200, but is jerky.

I have configured one Zyxel (spelling?) and one Intel modem (With no
manual to be found) to work on the same server and it just so happens
their input and output speed is at a cozy 19200.

The Optimas are doomed ... does anyone out there know what is going
on?

I ditched CTS/RTS ... and use Xon/Xoff.

The future doesn't look bright for this modem pool.


Tmoh Research  Net: [e-mail] Net: [e-mail]
John S. Pinnow      [e-mail]  Url:
http://www.uwm.edu/~jspinnow
[414] 761-1537

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 07:12 EST
From: [e-mail] (James Bellaire)
Subject: 1-900 = $100,000 Fraud!


The phone fraud files are open again!  From the evening news ...

> From WFRN-FM (Elkhart, IN) Radio News ... 1-6-95
(Names may be misspelled due to this being transcribed from a tape of
a
radio news broadcast.)

The case of a Kosciusco County teen accused of using other people's
credit
card numbers to charge $100,000 worth of 1-900 calls is a reminder to
keep a
close eye on our long distance bill.

Eighteen-year-old James Rhinehart (SP?) of Etna Green was jailed for
theft and fraud.  Mary Lee Cesna (?) of GTE in Elkhart says she's
never seen a case like that here in Michiana.  She says anytime we are
billed for a long distance call we did not make we should contact the
phone company who sent the bill.  "You need to have that as a record
that you did not make that call, even if it's 20 cents, because the
following month it could be $20.  And you want to make sure that
whoever is your billing company knows that you did not make those
calls." (Spokeswoman) Cesna says the company uses that information to
pursue an investigation into the posibility of fraud such as in the
Rhinehart case.

WSBT-TV 28 (Elkhart, IN) Eleven O'Clock News added the following ...

Police say Rhinehart made 30 - 40 900 calls per day to a sex line,
charging them to area residents.  Even the local sheriff was hit in
this scam. [The sheriff then explained the scam.] GTE said they would
remove the charges from the bills.

                      ---------------

How did he do it?

The Etna Green telco is an old GTE telco that does not provide ANI
information.  The 900 service asked callers who did not come with ANI
info to enter their number to continue, Rhinehart just entered other
people's numbers at random.  GTE's spokewoman assured Elkhart
customers that their exchange provided ANI directly and was not
vunerable to this kind of fraud.

Sounds like the 1-900 sex line has the responsibility here.  Manual
input of your ANI should never be allowed!  When I first heard this I
thought this brat was a misguided genius.  I didn't know the 900
service had made it so easy!


[e-mail]     James E. Bellaire


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are very few places left where
ANI
does not come with the territory, so to speak. There are very few
places
where telco information providers  do not get all the records they
need
to accurately bill for their services. I thought in those few
instances
where ANI could not be provided for whatever reason, the IP simply did
not give service, or required some other method of billing such as a
credit card. Like yourself, I'm amazed the IP took the customer's word
for it. In regular long distance calling (or any call where a toll is
involved) it is rare, but occassionally there will be an ANI failure
for
whatever reason, and in those cases the long distance operator will
come
on the line and ask 'what is the number you are calling from?'. People
sometimes lie about that also, but I guess it is not quite as critical
with the small amount of money involved nor is it as likely to be
abused
as are sex phone lines.

Old people like myself on this mailing list will remember how many
years
ago the long distance operator had to ask the caller for his phone
number
on every single call. Even the local /0/ operator only got the prefix
or
exchange you were calling from ... not the last four digits. The way
the
switching machinery worked in those days, by the time your call
reached
its destination -- even if that was just the operator -- the last four
digits had been lost in the matrix. There was no easy way to prove or
disprove what the customer *said* his phone number was short of having
one of the guys in the frames walk around rack after rack, row after
row looking at the switches as one led to the next and the next, etc.

AT&T did not invent the Electronic Switching System (ESS) purely to
combat fraud, but that certainly was one side-affect; some icing for
the cake. It had gotten in the early 1970's to the point where for
all intents and purposes the public telephone network in the USA was
completely out of control. Too many subscribers knew too much about
how the system operated for AT&T's comfort. In 1970 toll fraud was at
an all time high. At a hearing that year when New York Telephone
wanted
to raise their rates, a commissioner of the state utility regulators
asked NYT how much they had to write off the year before due to toll
fraud
and the answer was about eight million dollars, by 1969 values ...
that
news was shocking enough that it received a large write up in quite a
few newspapers nationally.   PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #16
*****************************