private line magazine and e-zine back issue text archive. Caution when using any material here which is now very much dated.
- (1)_(1A)_(2)_(2A)_(3)_(3A)_(4)_(4A)_(5)_(5A)_(6)_(6A)_(7)_(7A)
- _(11)_(11A) (12)_(12A)
C. A nice letter from Anonymous in Minnesota
Dear Tom,
Thanks for your note of September 16, 1996 which just happened to be my birthday. You remembered it despite that being impossible. Anyway, it's sure great to hear from you again. I still think you got a rough deal from your distributors and newstands. I was really hoping your publication would succeed and prosper. You put your whole heart into it and your publication had a high level of quality. I also appreciated your sensible and positive attitude. You showed yourself to be a person of quality.
_Blacklisted!411_ dropped the ball on you. But then I felt taken by them also. Upon missing issues, I wrote to inquire and they sent a subscription renewal form for which I sent $20.00 on 6/17/96. I have not heard from them since. They cashed my check but sent no magazines. It's probably just as well as I noticed they were quickly turning from a technical magazine into a "sovereignty" magazine and I didn't appreciate that. Never-the-less, if they aren't going to publish, I think it would be thoughtful of them to return the $20.00.
I did manage to put in a phone-line system throughout my house. (Six rather than four wires to accommodate power to my old Trimline Phone lamps. I installed the transformer in the basement ceiling. So now I have extensions all over the place with a variety of old phones and new phones and answering machines plugged in. Even a timer to turn the whole system off for three hours when I get tired of hearing my phone ring. And I installed a country mailbox (cedar slats on a cedar post) in front. I needed it for the many magazines I've receive.
I'm really happy to hear about your engagement plans to that lovely lady. I'm happy to hear that you two are madly in love with each other. When you get around to setting the marriage date, let me know and I'll send you a white covered wedding Bible. It's a good foundation for building a happy life together. I always give them to folks getting married that I run into my Lutheran Ministry work. I like to give Bibles away.
I'm running out of paper. Thanks again for writing,
The Reverend Anonymous In Minnesota
------------------------------------
IV. AN INTRODUCTION TO PRISON PHONE TECHNOLOGY-- by Tom Farley A. A brief overview B. Three different call processing approaches 1. Class of service approach 2. Generic switch utilizing custom software a. Close up of one switch: NACT's 120LCX 3. Dedicated system using PC technology 4. Typical Call processors' anti-fraud features a. Call blocking on a permanent basis b. Call blocking on an as needed basis c. Limiting long distance carriers d. Flash hook prevention e. Rotary dial acceptance f. Limiting automated message attempts g. Conference call prevention C. The federal Inmate Telephone System (ITS) 1. Introduction 2. Letter from jail 3. Discussion and speculation 4. Federal Bureau of Prison (B.OP.) Time Line 5. Discussion continues 6. ITS Account Report 7. A report on ITS from Jail 8. Bibliography
A. General Overview
The prison phone business is big and getting bigger. At least 50,000 inmate phones now exist with more being added all the time. By comparison, colleges account for 60,000 public phones and hotels and motels 80,000. [1] Phone companies pay big commissions to states and counties to service the rapidly growing prison market. The decades old practice of letting inmates call collect to any number they wish is now being replaced by allowing collect calling or direct dialing to pre-selected numbers. Just how that is accomplished is the focus of this article.
Prison phone systems come in a bewildering number of shapes and sizes. County, state and some Federal prisons configure their operations for their requirements, consequently, there are no standards, much like all PBX's vary widely in features and operating methods. But like PBX's, there are some features common to all "inmate call control technologies."
At the very least, a prison phone system uses a call processor to approve and place the call, surveillance equipment to monitor it, and recording equipment to archive the conversation. Only smaller counties and, curiously, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, "the largest state prison system on earth, still unlock the cells and let prisoners use a phone on someone's desk, a la Barney Fife." (2) In past years prisoners could call collect to anyone they wished. The new trend, though, is toward allowing direct or collect calls to pre-approved numbers. The most controversial approach is a pre-approved number scheme, as practiced by the federal Inmate Telephone System (ITS). But before we look at ITS, let's look at the technology state and county prisons use to process automated collect calls.
B. Three approaches to call processing
While line based call blocking is an effective solution for some facilities, most county and state prisons use a call processor to approve and place calls. There are two approaches. The first method employs a pre-existing switch using custom software written for the prison industry and quite often for the individual facility itself. Switch based platforms excel at supporting the greatest number of ports (sometimes to 8,000). The other approach uses a dedicated system based on PC or microprocessor technology. PC-based platforms shine at providing flexibility. Figure on stand alone switches costing from $160,000 to $700,000, compared to PC- platforms starting around $60,000 with only 96 ports or 48 channels. [3] Let's first look at what a telco can do and then we'll look at call processors.
1. Class of service approach
Large and small telcos offer many kinds of call blocking to institutions. The advantage is simplicity. Order from your local phone company and pay by the month. Pacific Bell calls their two offerings the "COPT (Customer Owned Pay Telephone) Inmate Line" and the "COPT Inmate Collect Only Line." [4] The COPT Inmate Line is a low security offering, with only 900/976 and international direct distance dialing (IDDD) permanently blocked. 'O+' calls are screened for collect only. All other calls, including local, '411', '611' , '911' '0-' (operator dialed) and so on must be blocked with customer owned equipment. Their COPT Inmate Collect Only Line, by comparison, costs more but blocks all of the above calls, at least over Pacific Bell's network. Line based call blocking may be good to have, however, it can't replace a prison's call processor.
2. Generic switch using custom software.
Switches like the Summa Four, Excell, Harris 20/20 are often used to managing prison calls. National Applied Computer Technology (NACT), for example, sells a switch called the LCX 120C switching system. [4] It's a tandem digital switch, often used by long distance carriers, prepaid calling card sellers, payphone route handlers and other service providers. The 120C is a medium to large trunk switch, capable of putting long distance traffic out to the toll network without going through the local central office first. It's a generic switch, therefore, with software making the difference. NACT is heavily involved in the correctional industry. Let's look a little more closely at this switch, since it is so often used in prisons and other high fraud locations.
a. Close up of one switch: NACT's LCX120C
Although I do not have the name of the operator, a NACT LCX120C is currently operated by a company which manages or owns over 2,500 COCOTs in New York City. 1+, 0+ and 0- calls are processed through the switch and all traffic is scrutinized by NACT's proprietary Control and Validation Unit (CVU). Most software, by the way, is developed in "C". NACT claims fraud losses will drop from 20% on average to 0.5 percent and the return on investment for this operator was only six weeks. Perhaps.
The cabinet housing the switch stands three feet tall and two feet wide. A clear plexiglass door covers the electronic bay housing the electronics. Two 125 cfm fans keep the air moving. The control and validation unit (CVU) stands at the top of the assembly. The CVU is the primary processor, equipped with dual 330/520 MB hardrives and a 250 MB cartridge tape drive. Using older but serviceable technology, the processor is an MC680x0, utilizing 8 megs of ram and drawing on a 400 watt power supply. The CVU does validation and controls the trunk control unit (TCU) below it.
Up to four trunk control units can be supported, each TCU controlling 120 ports (60 talk paths). The TCUs contain "processor and trunk control cards to handle line signalling, send/receive digits, and interface with the CPU." Each TCU utilizes a "realtime industrial processor", 128 Kb of RAM, 80 KB of ROM and a 300 watt power supply. An uninteruuptible power supply sits below the TCU and a remote diagnostics system, with a modem, of course, sits below that.[5] Add an administration workstation and a printer and you're ready to roll.
2. Dedicated system using PC technology
a. Introduction
The other approach to prison call processing uses a dedicated system, often based on PC or microprocessor hardware. Such a beast will use a 486 processor or a Pentium, typically running under DOS rather than UNIX. TELEQUIP, CPDI and others use this approach. [6] TELEQUIP's ACP-4000 (Automated Call Processor (R)) is marketed just to correctional facilities. That might make it simpler to install. TELEQUIP boasts that "ACP installation is the easiest in the industry. No wall space or card racks! Simple plug-and-play is standard. Set the ACP anywhere on-site, connect one cable to a 66 block, plug in the power and your ACP is processing inmate calls!" [7] Wonderful. N.A.C.T., by comparison, says six weeks are required to install their switch. TELEQUIP says their equipment services 8,000 prison lines and six state contracts. That's a pretty large slice of the prison pie. Let's take a look at CPDI's offering, though, to get an idea of a PC-platform based switch.
b. Close up look at a PC-based switch
CPDI's PC-switch approach is typical. It relies on a file server, a card processor, a workstation, Dialogic telephone interface cards, a Novel local area network, a hub and some proprietary software. [8] The file server is actually a souped up PC, a computer with file management software, utility programs, rate files, call detail records, and a report generator program. The disk drives and CPU's range from 635 MB to 9 GB and 486/66 to Pentium 133 respectively, depending on system requirements.
Call processing takes place with the cards. C.P.D.I uses Dialogic DTI/211, D/121B and D/240sl T-1boards are used in their card processors. Voice files, backup log files and application programs reside in the individual card processors. Each card processor has 48 ports, allowing 24 simultaneous calls. voice boards for prompts and a big hard drive. Add a card processor and handle more calls, 48 ports at a time. T1 lines usually terminate directly into the card processors.
A tape backup and a hard drive backup are usually standard, indeed, a redundant file server is often used in case of failure. Hard drives range from 635 MB to 9 GB. The administration workstation does system maintenance. It has a modem and a dial up remote access port, allowing one "to retrieve call detail records, add or delete cards, change features, change voice files, add upgrades or access any part of the platform."
So what do these two kinds of systems have in common? Plenty, especially when it comes to anti-fraud features.
3. Call processors' anti-fraud features
Many state and county prison calls are dialed collect from a pre-approved list. Allowing and supervising calls from hundreds or possibly thousands of prisoners at an institution requires a fraud resistant automated collect calling system. Everett Castor, switch operations manager for N.A.C.T says "You can't possibly simulate in a lab everything an inmate can think to do." [9] Here's a list of features a modern processor may have:
a. Call blocking on a permanent basis -- Most inmates are not allowed to talk to a live operator of any sort. In addition, 700, 800, 900 and 950 services are all permanently blocked. "Country codes, information digits, NPAs (area codes), third party numbers" can also be shut down.
b. Call blocking on an as needed basis -- Inmates and their compatriots are notorious for their ability to find home phone numbers of guards, wardens and family members of same. Witnesses, judges and many others are also targets. Most systems accommodate nearly limitless amounts of non-dialable numbers. This does not prevent a third party, though, from manually bridging a call.
c. Limiting long distance carriers -- Most systems now use one carrier, keeping inmates from switching, for better or worse, to another LD provider.' [10]
d. Flash hook prevention -- keeps inmates from breaking out of of a call and dialing a new number. [11] This was a problem with older analog processors which were built along PBX lines.
e. Rotary dial acceptance -- Some systems allow a rotary dialed party to signal collect acceptance by holding the line, however, this normally requires the switch to be programmed for this ahead of time.
f. Limiting automated message attempts -- Like many of us, inmates try to send coded messages with an automated collect system. This feature limits attempts to a certain number within a certain amount of time, keyed to the inmates' account number.
g. Reverse battery supervision -- Disables keypad after destination number is dialed. Prevents fun and games and possibly getting a new dial tone. Pressing different buttons on the keypad while an automated collect system worked may have allowed an unrestricted dial tone in older systems. [12]
h. Three way call prevention -- TELEQUIP claims near 100% 3-way call prevention with their patented ACP processor. They go on to say that AT&T's Inmate Processing System deters only 93% of such attempts. I do not see how manually bridging a call can be stopped. It is also possible that call forwarding or foreign exchange circuits could circumvent this.
i. Call limitations -- allows an institution to limit calls by length, billing type, dollar amount and so on. May prevent a huge bill from being placed to a subscriber who has no intention of paying.
D. The Federal Inmate Telephone System (ITS)
1. An introduction
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (B.O.P.) incarcerates approximately 100,000 prisoners at 84 institutions across the country. Fully a quarter of that population are foreign nationals, willing and often able to spend big bucks to call home. This captive market might seem ideal for private competition, with hundreds of long distance companies bidding for a Federal contract. Oddly enough, though, the U.S. still carries calls themselves over the government's normal FTS2000 network. That's composed of, essentially, heavily discounted Sprint lines. (Local telephone companies handle local calls). [13] A new contract, however, will be awarded for this traffic due to a court settlement, indeed, a whole new inmate telephone system will be developed in the next year or two. For now, though, the B.O.P. continues to manage things their own way. So what's going on here? And what kind of technology do the Feds use to process these calls? Before we answer those questions, though, let's take a break and look at the letter that got this article started:
2. Letter from jail
March 12, 1996
private line journal P.O. Box 1059 Isleton, CA
Re: A "Beseeching", of sorts . . .
As may be evident, I am currently incarcerated within a federal correctional center in Coleman, Florida. I have been placed in this hell hole due to ideas run-afoul . . . I am here for wire fraud. It seems that I may have gotten ahead of myself in that I "accidentally" wired money from a corporation's account that I neither worked for, nor had the authorization to be meddling with. Never-the-less, some funds, as I said before, "accidentally" ended up in my account (which was opened in another name, by the way -- I am not totally lame!).
Anyhow, I would hope that I may be able to convince you to send me a couple of your back issues, or better yet, a subscription to your fine journal? I await your reply with high hopes.
name withheld
3. Discussion
Damn that wire fraud! Turns out our man is the author of, appropriately enough, _Credit Card Fraud and Toll Fraud Issues_, a slim tome detailing how "scam artists can take advantage of you without your knowledge." Great. In any case, I sent him a copy of _private line_ and he replied with all sorts of interesting information on the Inmate Telephone System.
ITS is a switch based system controlled by a UNIX workstation at 41 federal penitentiaries. I doubt a switch sits at each facility, however, that is certainly possible. But remember, a switch like a N.A.C.T. can sit anywhere in the United States and take calls. The traffic simply has to be routed to it. You could even own a switch and have it located at N.A.C.T.'s headquarters in Utah, just so that it gets around the clock attention. It would be natural, though, that some sort of G.T.E. switching is employed since G.T.E. helped develop I.T.S. Maybe in Texas? Collect calls that are authorized use AT&T's automated collect call program. [14]
In accordance with a settlement last year, "prison officials have now agreed to tie their rates to those of state prisons, which are controlled by state utility boards."[15] That might cut down on complaints about high costs, especially overseas calls. Rates like $9.99 a minute to Vietnam were not uncommon. Even domestic calls are sufficiently high that a foreign exchange circuit may be less expensive to arrange rather than paying for direct dialing. (I've paid as high as 61 cents a minute to accept an ITS call from Florida in the middle of the day.) Whether the ITS officer in each prison would allow this is a whole different question, since the whole system is in flux and because each facility is allowed a great deal of leeway in deciding its rules. As an example 38 facilities allow only direct dialing to pre-approved numbers, 28 still provide direct calling only and 18 provide both. The settlement does allow 120 minutes of collect calling to all inmates, no matter what the policy is at a particular institution.
Anti-fraud features are basically the same as noted under '3' above. 3-way calling is definitely frowned upon. As one prisoner notes "the ITS system (through GTE/OPUS's proprietary specialized programming) detects such calls in real time, cuts off the inmate- caller, flags the inmates PAC and records the telephone number the inmate was connected to during the 3-way calling attempt."[16]
The Bureau of Prisons originated the Inmate Telephone System in 1990, implemented part of it through 1993 and watched as it fell apart in 1995. ITS lingers on at many institutions, but only until the entire system is scrapped after a new contract is awarded. That may take another year to let. Maybe two. The cornerstone of the system, direct dialing to pre-approved numbers has been heavily modified. The funding method, whereby the B.O.P. raided an inmate welfare fund to install the system, without having to officially publish their rules or intent, has been crushed, with Federal officials having returned $4,000,000 in mis-appropriated funds. What a mess. Take a look at the time line that follows:
4. Federal Bureau of Prison (B.OP.) Time Line
Pre-1973 -- Each institution's warden sets phone policy 1973 -- B.O.P. sets uniform national phone policy 6/29/1979 -- B.O.P. issues final Rule (44FR 38249) for policy 6/1/1983 -- 1983: B.O.P. amends 1979 rule (44FR 24622) 1990 -- B.O.P. conceives Inmate Telephone System 1991 -- GTE & OPUS begins installing ITS at certain prisons. 4/1992 -- B.O.P. starts charging AT&T rates plus 75 cents a call. 7/1993 -- An anonymous LD carrier sponsors class action suit against B.O.P. 8/1993 -- B.O.P. stops installing ITS after 41 facilities due to court injunction. 4/1994 -- B.O.P. admits official policy not often practiced. 4/1994 -- AT&T submits unsolicited bid to develop new system. 4/1994 -- Final rule published in the Congressional Record. 5/1995 -- Mediation begins, seeking to resolve problems. 8/2/95 -- Settlement reached.
5. Discussion continues
ITS was supposedly implemented to provide better security and to enable prisoners to better account for their money. The security angle seems spurious in light of existing call processors that offer excellent results. Money management seems odd as well. Direct dialing meant that prisoners needed to pay for calls out of their prison accounts. Yet B.O.P. officials would often take money sent by relatives and friends to cover phone expenses, in order to recover other debts owed by the prisoner. Endless arguments and excitement followed. Prisoners thought long distance costs were too high. Long distance companies felt shut out and the courts were also unhappy. Without going further into the history and machinations of all of this, [17] let's look at how ITS works in practice. Before we get an account from a _private line_ reader in jail, though, let's look at what a typical account report looks like, just so we get familiar with the terms. A register number, by the way, is like a prisoner's serial number . . .:
6. ITS Account Report
Inmate Telephone Account Report FCI LFREEH
Page 1of 1 Report Date Jan. 12, 1996 12:12 /dev/ttyi1f
Register Inmate Phone Access Date Number Name Code Entered
03496823 Louis Freeh 478274228 25-FEB-96
Inmate Dialing Instructions
Inmate Telephone System (ITS)
To place:
-- A Local Call: 1. Listen for the dial tone. 2. Enter the seven digit telephone number. 4. Enter your Phone Access Code (PAC). Example: 555-1234-478274228
-- A Long Distance Call: 1. Listen for the dial tone. 2. Enter 1, area code and telephone number. 4. Enter your Phone Access Code (PAC). Example: 1-202-555-1234-478274228
-- An International Call: 1. Listen for the dial tone. 2. Enter 011, country code and telephone number. 4. Enter your Phone Access Code (PAC). Example: 011-24-335937-478274228
To obtain your ITS account balance and the cost of your last call: I. Listen for the dial tone. 2. Enter 118, then enter your Phone Access Code (PAC). Example 118-478274228
-----------------------------------------------------
7. A report on ITS from Jail
A hacker at Lompoc writes _private line_ to say:
"ITS is pretty crappy. All my phone numbers have to be submitted to my counselor prior to calling (up to 30 numbers). In a few days the numbers are verified and put on my phone list. Each inmate is assigned a 10 digit pin when they first arrive.
The phones are like those information phones at airports. They're all in a row, about 25 of them with the small partition dividing each phone. I don't know if it's important but the handsets all smell like shit. When the handset is lifted you are greeted by a standard dialtone. After you dial the number you get a second dialtone. Then you enter the PIN and wait for validation.
The whole system is pretty Mickey Mouse and the cross talk is almost unbearable. Throughout your conversation you can hear DTMF tones from the neighboring phones. Each call is limited to 15 minutes but you can call back immediately if no one is waiting. When you get down to your final minute they drop carrier for a split second to warn you have 15 seconds left.
If a foreign dialtone or ring is detected you are dropped immediately. This is to prevent people from three-waying phone calls. It's easily corrected if the receiving party places a call, waits for an answer and then bridges the call. All calls are monitored, most likely recorded, in case you conspire to commit another crime over the phone. The Feds are always looking for a new indictment.
Everything is handled by a machine they have on the compound. It's some UNIX box that treats each phone as /dev/???. [18] The only numbers you can dial are those on your approved phone list. Thereby eliminating the problem of people stealing kodez!, or dialing any unauthorized numbers. ("O", 911, 800's, 700's, etc.)
Basically, it's run by a script . . . a person can pretty much write the whole ITS in modem commands.
The system's primary concern is security with inmate's phone calls as a secondary function. The rates are similar to calling card rates, a call to L.A. costs me $3.75 for 15 minutes. Interestingly it costs the same to Sacramento . . ."
8. Real short conclusion
ITS seems like some bureaucrats 'better idea' gone seriously astray. B.O.P's Request will be interesting to watch for in the next year or so. They'll need to specify what kind of system they want so that companies can bid on it. Lots of technical details should be included. My guess is that they will go with more conventional equipment and techniques -- I'm unsure if they can build on ITS technology, no matter how well it works, since GTE and OPUS's approach is proprietary. Hmm. Got any more information or personal experience with prison phones? Send it in and I'll print it here.
9. --Bibliography--
[1] "Long Distance Runaround" _New York Newsday_ Michael Moss, May 14, 1995
[2] 'Dialing For Dollars: Taxpayers Could Win Big With Prison Pay Phones' _John Sharp Opinions and Editorials_ Undated :( John Sharp, State Comptroller of Public Accounts http://www.cpa.texas.gov/comptrol/oped/oped18.html (5k)
[3] "Calling Card Platforms -- The Intelligence Behind The Cards" Ed Metcalf _Premier Telecard_ December 1995-January 1996 28 (+1(805) 547-8500 for Premier)
[4] Pacific Bell. For questions, try +1(415) 452-7455
[5] National Applied Computer Technology, 744 South 400 East, Orem, Utah 84058 (801) 225-6248 FAX (801) 224-8456
[6] TELEQUIP Labs Inc., 1820 N. Greenville Ave., Suite 100 RIchardson, TX 75801 1(800) 329-3290; Communications Product Development Incorporated 915 Broadway, Suite 100 Vancouver, WA 98660 (360) 694-2977 FAX (360) 694-2553
[7] TELEQUIP advertisement _Public Communications_ Volume 11, No. 4 April, 1995 49. This ad extols the virtues of their patented switch. This means you could do a patent search and read all about it. Consult _private line_ No. 4 (Volume 2, No. 1 January/February 1995) for my lengthy article on patent searching.
[8] "Calling Card Platforms -- The Intelligence Behind The Cards" ibid.
[9] "LCX 120C A Success In Camden County Correctional Facility," _CCQ-Correctional Communications Quarterly_ April, 1994. I have a reprint of this article, as supplied by N.A.C.T., however, I have no further information on _CCQ._
[10] "Letter from Prison" _2600_ Winter 1992-93 (Volume Nine Number Four )13
[11] CCQ ibid.
[12] Letter to the Editor by C. Rebel _2600_ Autumn 1990 (Volume 7, Number 3) 29
[13] "Federal Prison Telephone Plan Stuck on Hold" _Legal Times_ Naftali Bendavid May, 22 1995 Well researched and balanced article on ITS issues. +1(202) 457-0686, 1730 'M' Street N.W., Suite 802 Washington, D.C. 20036
[14] Each time I've accepted a collect call from ITS the automated voice announces "AT&T".
[15] "Plaintiffs, Feds Connect in Settlement; Inmates Laud Deal Over Prison Phones" _Legal Times_ Naftali Bendavid August 14, 1995 Follow on to the article in 13 above.
[16] name withheld -- Personal correspondence
[17] B.O.P.'s point of view is contained in the Federal Code of Regulations: 28 CFR 540 -- Telephone Regulations and Financial Responsibility. Or look it up in the April 4, 1994 Federal Register. It's the Big Kahuna of ITS documents, as far as rules, regs and explanations go. Not much technical info, however, you may want to look it up under this candidate for the longest URL:
http://www.gpo.ucop.edu:80/cgi- bin/gpogate?waisdoc=1&4=gpo.occ.uky.edu;1994_register/TEXT/100 384/3=0%201003840%20/diska/wais/data/1994_register/fr0ap94 dat022.txt;
[18] Peter Shipley offers this explanation of /dev/???:
A /dev/ is a path to a device kind of like COM1, COM2 and LPT1 under DOS. Think of COM1 as \dev\COM1 on your DOS box and if you do a dir or c:\dev you will see a listing of cards and services you have on your system, eg: (I made this list up)
c:> dir \dos
COM1 0 09-09-96 5:47p COM2 0 09-09-96 5:47p LPT1 0 09-09-96 5:47p SOUND BST 0 09-09-96 5:48p MOUSE MS 0 09-09-96 5:48p SVGA 0 09-09-96 5:48p KBD 0 09-09-96 5:48p SCSIDISK 1 0 09-09-96 5:48p SCSIDISK 2 0 09-09-96 5:48p SCSITAPE 1 0 09-09-96 5:48p SCSIROM 1 0 09-09-96 5:48p FLOPPY 1 0 09-09-96 5:48p FLOPPY 2 0 09-09-96 5:48p
V. A SHORT HISTORY OF INDEPENDENT TELEPHONY IN AMERICA -- With an attitude!
by J. Edward Hyde
Editor's note: This comes from _The Phone Book: What the telephone company would rather you not know_ published by the Henry Regnery Company in 1976. Although telephone historians may disagree with some specific points, I think the following account is substantially correct . . .
The Independents [Section 1: The Company, page 21]
If the telephone industry is represented by the face of a clock, 9 hours and 50 minutes constitute the Bell System's share. The remaining 2 hours and 10 minutes belong to the other 1,832 telephone companies.
Background
The Phone War of 1878 resulted in the formation of two nationwide communications monopolies: Western Union's telegraph and the Bell Company's telephone. Although Western Union's monopoly survived almost unchallenged until Bell's attempted takeover in 1910, Bell's telephone monopoly lasted less than a year. Most competitors disappeared as soon as the Bell Company filed suit against them for patent infringement, but at least 1,730 telephone companies were organized and operated during the period when Bell was supposed to have an exclusive mandate. When the original patent expired in 1894, this number quadrupled. In its charming history of the telephone industry [An Introduction to the Bell System, Chapter 3, Page 1] as it sees it, the Bell System states that:
Independent companies sprang up everywhere, often in towns where Bell companies operated. Speculators started companies on shoestrings, selling stocks of dubious worth and offering impossibly low rates in order to steal Bell Customers.
While it is true that some of these independents were started "on shoestrings" and offered low rates, let it not be forgotten whose shady dealings with the unscrupulous Jay Gould had to be stopped by the Supreme Court. From all available evidence, the birth of the independent telephone industry was due more to the Bell Company's mismanagement than to the greed of shady speculators. Even in the early days, Bell & Co. envisioned a nationwide telephone system. In 1878, the farsighted Alexander Bell wrote: . . . I believe that in the future, wires will unite the head offices of the Telephone Company in different cities, and that a man in one part of the country may communicate by word of mouth with another in a distant place.
Bell's use of the words "Telephone Company" leaves little doubt that he saw his small company as becoming the sole provider of telephone service in the nation, if not the world. With patent in hand and its almost incredible record in the courts (600 wins-0 losses), the Bell Company set out to fulfill Alexander's prophecy. But it did so with a soon-to-be characteristic disregard for customer demand, and this proved to be its undoing. Because the Bell Company had no legally recognized competition, it could go where profits were greatest to set up companies. For its services it could charge any rate the market would bear. Marginally profitable areas could be ignored until the company was ready to enter them. The singular worship of profits so disgusted Theodore Vail that he left the Bell Company in 1887. As a parting shot, he wrote: We have a duty to the public at large to make our service as good as possible and as universal as possible, and that earnings should be used not only to reward investors for their investment but also to accomplish these objectives.
Bell management thanked him for his comments and wished him a happy retirement. Those he left behind had neither his visionary business sense nor his sensible principles of customer service. Ignoring the protests of customers regarding exorbitant rates and the pleas of rural areas for service at any price, Bell's leadership plundered selected profitable areas during the remaining years of their exclusive ownership without realizing that they were pinning a target on their own chest in the neglected regions. Undoubtedly Bell's management suspected that bad times lay just on the other side of the initial patent expiration. Incredibly, they did nothing to prevent the deluge. In the cities where the Bell had its biggest stake, competitors appeared on nearly every corner.
In 1894 and 1895, some 6,000 telephone companies were established in cities where Bell was already providing service. Nearly all hoped to capitalize on the Bell Company's high cost of service. Most of these rebel companies had brief lifespans simply because capital requirements were larger than their capabilities, and they were rapidly consumed. Those independents able to accumulate capital reserves and operate on a regular basis were also consumed, only it took a little longer.
The Bell Company would first offer to buy these small but solvent enterprises. Not surprisingly, quite often the offer would be refused. If this happened, Bell unmasked its big guns. The most widely used tactic was to start a price war the little company could not hope to win. The reason it could not win was because the Bell Company's idea of a price cut was to offer free service for as long as it proved necessary. Since these small companies had no way of matching Bell's nation wide financial base, they vanished like a lamb in a ravenous wolfpack. In those rare instances where the small company could join the free-service-for-all-comers game, the Bell Company resorted to other measures: refusing to share line right-of ways, publicly denouncing the competitor's service and equipment, and, if all else failed, sabotage.
Although both sides were guilty of destroying equipment belonging to the other, we can't hear both sides of the story today because the only surviving party flatly denies that any such activities took place. Just about the only souvenir we have of such battles is a short paragraph in the Bell System Code of Conduct pertaining to the responsibility of every employee to protect company equipment. Although it is supposed to apply only in times of war; it was first printed in an era when Bell was at war with its competitors, when mysterious fires and broken lines were daily occurrences in the battle zones. The Bell System fought well if not cleanly in the urban sectors and retained control wherever it had already been prior to the patent expiration.
In rural areas where Bell arrived after the competition was well established. the victory column was markedly shorter. The Bell Company had nonchalantly ignored the rural areas with good reason-there was not enough money to be made there. Consequently, rural telephone companies had an easier time than did their city- based brethren. It didn't take much to get started, either. In some instances, two orders and $100 were all that was needed for the village blacksmith and the horse doctor to become founders of the first local telephone exchange. By 1897 more than 1,000 rural telephone exchanges had been organized to fill the void left by the negligent Bell, then heavily engaged in the aforementioned urban price war. Once the Bell Company overcame its city-based resistance, it directed its energies to the destruction of the weaker farm systems. Apparently it never occurred to Bell that there might be a difference between competitors motivated primarily by profit and competitors concerned solely with providing service. Or that tactics designed to eliminate one might cause the other to flourish. In farm areas, the Bell found that price slashing didn't work.
Farm telephone systems had two inherent qualities that worked against Bell no matter what Bell did. First of all, rural exchange pricing was more than reasonable before the Bell Company got into town. Having little else to go on, most rural telephone systems were organized on a cooperative basis guaranteeing low consumer prices. The second advantage was a by-product of the first: loyalty. No matter how low Bell prices were, loyalty and kinship to the local telephone masters overcame the lure of cheaper service. Nor did sabotage work as it had in the cities. In communities where everyone knew everyone else, the Bell System's bullyboys were notably conspicuous. In one community where Bell's terror tactics were employed, a retaliatory fire in the local Bell office raged out of control while the Bell representative wrung his hands. In response to his call for help, one thoughtful soul handed him a water pail and told him where the community well was located. Meanwhile, the Bell System goons languished in the local jail on charges of vagrancy and missed all the excitement.
In a final effort to eliminate these durable opponents, the Bell System prohibited them from using Bell's lines. In practical terms, this meant that the farm companies would have to string their own wire if they wanted to connect their phones to those in the adjoining county. Knowing that these co-op companies had limited sources of capital, the Bell hoped that this ploy would effectively kill them off. It didn't. In fact, the restriction on line use had the opposite effect; it forced the small independents to band together for mutual survival.
By 1900, the year in which the Bell Company officially began its rural telephone program, the combined effect of low rates and familism kept the Bell share of the rural market extremely small. It has remained so. Although the Bell System provides service to eighty-two percent of the available phone market in this country, it has only thirty percent of the available territory and nearly all of it is in metropolitan areas.
--------------------------------------
IV. _private line_ TABLE OF CONTENTS & BACK ISSUE ORDERING INFORMATION
Here is a list of _private line_ table of contents. Back issues are five dollars apiece including shipping in the United States. Complete text of each issue will be posted to privateline.tv during October. There is no substitute for the real magazine, of course, and you are encouraged to buy the back issues to take advantage of all the photographs and diagrams. _private line_ is a normal sized (8.5 inch by 11 inch) publication on good paper. The best issues are 5-10. At this time I can only take checks or money orders made out to private line. My address is:
private line P.O. Box 1059 Isleton, CA 95641-1059 USA
+1 (916) 777-4420 Voice & FAX Hours: M-T-Th-F 9:00 to noon
Thank you!
Tom Farley (privateline@delphi.com) ................................................................................
Volume 1, No. 1: June/July 1994 (private line No. 1) Well done photocopy with cardstock cover. 28 pp.
I. The Front Cover and The Inside Front Cover II. The Editorial Page III. Telco Payphone Basics, Part 1 IV. The Post Pay Coin Line V. A Conversation With Motorola VI. The GTE RTSS Phone VII. California Toll Fraud Law VIII. Ad rates and Miscellaneous Information .............................................................................................
Volume 1, No. 2: August/September 1994 (private line No. 2) Well done photocopy with cardstock cover. 24 pp.
I. Editorial Page II. Update and Corrections III. Telco Payphone Basics, Part II IV. The Coin First Coin Line V. The Dial Tone First Coin Line VI. Tip, Ground and Ring Explained VII. California Cell Fraud Law .....................................................................................
Volume 1, No. 3: October, November, December 1994 (p.l. No. 3) Well done photocopy with cardstock cover. 24 pp.
I. Editorial Page II. Updates and Corrections III An Introduction to Local Scanning IV. Def Con II Review: Fear and Hacking in Las Vegas V. Road Trip to Vegas IV. A Few Thoughts on EMS and 911 ......................................................................................................
Volume 2, No.1: January/February 1995 (private line No. 4) Photocopy of printed original. Cardstock cover. Numerous line drawings of patents. 32 pp.
I. About The Front Cover II. Editorial Page III. Updates and Corrections IV. Hacking Patents -- A How To Guide A. Introduction B. Sidebar -- Quick Start Guide C. Patent Numbering and Classification D. Sidebar -- A Tale of Two Classes E. The Patent Document F. Patent Bibliography Example G. Tools and Resources H. Background and Summary Example I. List of Patent and Trademark Deposit Libraries J. Class 379 -- Telephonic Communications V. Who's Bugging You?: An Interview With Chris Hall VI. Federal Toll Fraud Law: Section 1029 ..................................................................
Volume 2, No. 2: March/April 1995 (private line No. 5) 5 b&w photographs. Several large diagrams. 32pp.
I. Editorial Page II. Updates and Corrections III. Cell Phone Basics, Part 1 IV. The Roseville Telephone Museum V. Telecom Related Magazines and Newsletters VI. Exploded COCOT Diagrams ...................................................................
Volume 2, No. 3 May/June 1995 (private line No. 6) 32 pp. Six charts and diagrams.
I. Editorial Page II. Updates and Corrections III. Letters IV. The Internet Bridge V. Cell Phone Basics, Part II A. Toll Fraud VI. An Interview With Damien Thorn VII. The entire Digital Telephony Bill VIII The Text of 18 USC 1029 IX. The Text of 47 CFR 22.919 (The regulation prohibiting cloning) ...........................................................................................
Volume 2, No. 4 July/August 1995 (private line No. 7) 31 b&w photographs and seven diagrams. 32 pp.
I Editorial Page II Letters III Updates and Corrections A. Magazine List B. Cloning Regulation 47 C.F.R. 22.919 C. Misc. Stuff IV. A Quick and Dirty Guide to EIA/TIA Standards V. Class of Service and Payphones VI. The Payphone Corner VII. Payphone Statistics VIII. Outside Plant Part 1 (Illustrated) IX. A Few Thoughts on the Telecom Digest X. Book Reviews A. _Old Time Telephones_ B. _The Straight Scoop_ C. _ISDN: A User's Guide To Services, Applications and Resources in California_ XI. Debit Cards, Past, Present and Future XII. Telephone Repair Column .........................................................................................
Volume 2, No. 5: September/October 1995 (private line No. 8) 9 b&w photographs. 18 diagrams. 32pp.
I. Editorial Page II. Updates and Corrections III. Letters IV. Canadian Telecom Part II V. Outside Plant Part II VI. Telephone Historical Societies VII. Cellular Test Mode Scanning by Damien Thorn A. Accessing Diagnostic Modes B. Oki Test Mode Commands C. Motorola Diagnostics D. Motorola Test Mode Command Summary ...........................................................................................................
Volume 2, No. 6: November/December 1995 (private line No. 9) 16 b&w photographs. 13 diagrams. 3 page index to Vol. 2. 32pp
I. Editorial Page II. Updates and Corrections III. Letters IV. Def Con III Review V. Cable Station Operations A. Point Arena California -- From Lighthouse to Lightguide B. An Interview with Stephen J. Novotny VI. The First Transatlantic Telephone Cable VII. Book Review -- _Understanding Fiber Optics_ VIII. Canadian Telecom Part 2 IX. Index to Volume 2 .............................................................................
Volume 3, No. 1: January/February 1996 (private line No. 10) Color cover, 13 b&w photographs, 6 diagrams, 32pp
I. Editorial Page II. Updates and Corrections III. Letters IV. Rules or Revenue: A Cellular Fraud Case V. Fraud and Countermeasures, Part II Clones 11 VI. British and Irish Payphones (Illustrated) VII. Book reviews A. _In Direct Touch With the Wide World_ B. _Tune In On Telephone Calls_ VIII. Service This! IX. Manahawkin Cable Station
START OF ARCHIVE --->
-
