home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Hacker Chronicles 1
/
HACKER1.ISO
/
cud3
/
cud307f.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1992-08-18
|
9KB
|
180 lines
------------------------------
From: Various
Subject: The CU in the News
Date: March 3, 1991
********************************************************************
*** CuD #3.07: File 6 of 6: The CU in the News ***
********************************************************************
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 91 14:34:11 PST
From: Visualize Whirled Peas <brewer@ACE.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject: Sounds good... court ruling on BBS in SW Bell
From: Jim.Bellotte@f2.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Bellotte)
Newsgroups: alt.cosuard
Subject: settlement
Date: 19 Feb 91 12:15:38 GMT
On January 9, 1991, the Texas Public Utilities Commission, on a vote of
3 to 0 approved a negotiated settlement in Texas PUC docket 8387. This
is the case of Reginald A. Hirsch, et. al. vs Southwestern Bell
Telephone Company. This case grew from Southwestern Bell's attempt to
assess business rates to all known BBSs.
The negotiated settlement provides for the following provision to be
added to the Southwestern Bell tariffs:
-------------Begin quotation from proposed stipulation---------------
2. Southwestern Bell agrees to amend Section 23,
Paragraph 3.1 of its General Exchange Tariff defining business
service to include the following footnote:
As a result of a Stipulation in Docket No. 8387 approved by the
Commission on ______, Southwestern Bell agrees that all Bulletin Board
Systems ("BBS") that are located at residence locations that do not
solicit, require, or receive monetary compensation and that use three or
fewer local exchange access lines shall be permitted to subscribe to
local exchange access service at the approved residential rates. BBSs
that are eligible to subscribe to local exchange access service at
residential rates may publish their name, telephone number and technical
information in a listing of BBSs by location or subject matter. Such
listings must be purely informational to advise readers of the BBS's
name, telephone number, location, subject matter, hours, baud rates, and
other technical information. BBSs that do not meet these conditions
will be considered businesses, and approved business rates will apply
for all local exchange access lines used by such BBS.
-----------------------------End Quotation--------------------------
The stipulation also provides that Southwestern Bell will provide a
single point of contact for BBS operators and that for a period of 90
days after the PUC decision, they will waive service charges on orders
to change service from one class of service to another in order to
comply with settlement.
This has been a long fight. The settlement is not what any of the
parties would consider perfect. It does give BBS operators in Texas a
firm set of guidelines in which to operate. They no longer have to play
"Russian Roulette", hoping that they reach a SWBT business office that
understands the rules.
Ed Hopper
President - COSUARD
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Michael E. Marotta" <MERCURY@LCC.EDU>
Subject: New Telecom Laws Proposed
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 08:23 EST
GRID News. ISSN 1054-9315. vol 2 nu 6. February 22, 1991.
World GRID Association, P. O. Box 15061, Lansing, MI 48901 USA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan to Overhaul Telecom Rules by Michael E. Marotta
On February 19 and 20, companion bills were introduced into the
state house and state senate of Michigan. "The Michigan
Telecommunications Act" is House Bill 4343 and Senate Bill 124.
The two versions are identical. HB4343 was introduced by Alma G.
Stallworth (D-Detroit), chair of the House Public Utilities
committee. SB124 was introduced by Mat J. Dunaskiss (R-Lake
Orion), chair of the newly-created Senate Technology and Energy
Committee. If passed by October 1, 1991, the bills become law on
that date and have sunset limits of four years, expiring on
September 30, 1995.
The Michigan Telecommunications Act would, if passed into law,
accomplish the following:
(*) establish a new regulator, the Michigan Telecommunications
Commission, removing telephone from the Public Service
Commission and bringing cable television under the new
agency's scope.
(*) de-regulate local exchange providers, allowing them
monopoly status and the right to sell other services,
including long distance, cable television and information.
(*) freeze local rates at the current level, allowing no
increase beyond the maximum rate as of Nov. 1, 1990.
(*) require 911 service to be provided to any county that
wants it. In fact, there are 48 separate provisions for
911 service, significantly more than any other section of
the act. (Mandatory service for the hearing impaired runs
a mere 42 lines.)
(*) Outlaw unsolicited advertising via fax. (This provision,
like many of the 911 rules, is already in place. It was
created in 1990 as an amendment to the Telephone Act of
1913 and is being carried over.)
The Michigan Telecommunications Act specifically seeks to overturn
the "Modified Final Judgement." Its goal is to allow Michigan
telecom providers the freedom to develop products and services.
Whether and to what extent it meets those goals will be determined
in part by what happens to the bills in committees and on the
floors.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: John / Barbara McMullen (Reprint from Newsbytes)
Subject: 2600 banned from Texas Prisons
Date: March 4, 1991
MIDDLE ISLAND, NEW YORK, U.S.A., 1991 MAR 4(NB) --
Emmanuel Goldstein, editor and publisher of 2600: The Hacker Quarterly, has
told Newsbytes that The Texas Department of Criminal Justice has prohibited
delivery delivery of the fall 1990 issue of 2600 to a subscriber
incarcerated in a Texas prison.
The official "Publication Denial Notification" form, dated January 9, 1991,
was received by Goldstein and published in the Winter 1990-91 issue that
was released on March 1st. The form indicates that the denial was
instituted because "Publication contains material on the setting up and
operation of criminal schemes or how to avoid detection of criminal schemes
by lawful authority charged with the responsibility for detected such
illegal activity."
The specific reasons for determining the basis for the ruling are listed as
"Pages 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 42 and 43 contain information on misusing
telephone equipment to make telephone calls illegally and to obtain cash
and credit cards illegally."
Goldstein, commenting on the ban to Newsbytes, said "Inside of prison,
there is not much freedom so I guess it's not surprising that they do
things like this. What is surprising is that the article which they were
most concerned with was written by the Fraud Division of the U.S. Secret
Service and was clearly indicated to have been so authored."
Newsbytes examined the Fall issue of 2600 and found that the Secret Service
technical synopsis is contained on pages 18-21 while page 29 is part of the
letters from readers section and contains a letter from a prisoner in an
unnamed prison explaining how he or she makes unpaid telephone calls. Pages
42 and 43 contain an article by "Crazed Luddite & Murdering Thug", "An
Algorithm For Credit Cards", which explains the checksum verification of
credit card numbers.
Also contained in the same issue is an interview with security expert Dr.
Dorothy Denning, an explanation of caller-id and an article by Goldstein on
alleged BellSouth plans for monitoring telephone lines.
A supervisor at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional
Division told Newsbytes that "Inmates may subscribe to any publication they
choose but they understand that the magazines are subject to review for
appropriateness. If they contain any material that does not meet or
standards, either the articles in question or the entire magazine will be
rejected." The supervisor, who could not speak for attribution, explained
that, if the objectionable passages were 5 pages or less, they would have
been removed and the remainder of the magazine delivered. She also said
that both the inmate and the publication have the right to appeal the
decision.
(Barbara E. McMullen & John F. McMullen/19910304)
********************************************************************
------------------------------
**END OF CuD #3.07**
********************************************************************