Article 4351 of comp.dcom.telecom.tech: Path: mri-gw!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!starcomm.overleaf.com!news2.new-york.net!spcuna!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news1.oakland.edu!detroit.freenet.org!detroit.freenet.org!aa931 From: aa931@detroit.freenet.org (Jack Decker) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom.tech Subject: Re: Anyone need 2 cell phones/1# Date: 17 Oct 1994 23:00:40 GMT Organization: Greater Detroit Free-Net, Detroit, MI Lines: 103 Message-ID: <37uvmo$2b3@detroit.freenet.org> References: <1704F12811S86.MC1729@uacsc2.albany.edu> <37rgcu$fr5@newsbf01.news.aol.com> Reply-To: aa931@detroit.freenet.org (Jack Decker) NNTP-Posting-Host: detroit.freenet.org On Sun Oct 16 23:19:27 1994, puma@netcom.com (puma) wrote: > In article <37rgcu$fr5@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, > RODCOM 1 wrote: > >In article <1704F12811S86.MC1729@uacsc2.albany.edu>, > >MC1729@uacsc2.albany.edu (Mike Catchpole) writes: > > > >That Bell Atlantic says that 2 phones on 1 number is illegal and will > >prosecute for theft of services. > > > > > >When you called you probably talked to a "know nothing" operator. The > >subject is a grey area and the person you talked to most likely has a > >pre-programmed answer. In fact it is not illegal as you are the original > >owner of the ESN and have a current service contract. They are just > >unhappy that you are not activating an additional phone line. > > > Well, it's definitely a violation of FEDERAL law, which prohibits changing > the ESN's. It's also probably covered in your service contract with the > cellular provider, so while not illegal in that regard could still result > in suspension of your service and civil actions. Having more than one > phone on the same number could be considered fraud or theft of services, > since the cellular provider generally charges monthly fees per phone, and > could result in criminal charges from that standpoint. Now hold on just a second here. If we can agree that some laws get passed that are just plain bad law, I would submit that this is one of them. I would contend that having more than one phone on the same number is not theft in any way, because: 1) The cell company does not own the cell phones, therefore the number of cell phones a person owns (whether on one number, multiple numbers, or no number at all) is totally irrelevant to this discussion. 2) The cell company does charge for cell phone USAGE - that is to say, airtime. And if for some reason two cell phones could operate on the same number simultaneously (which I gather is not technically possible, at least not within the same system), they would still be paying for the airtime used on each phone. Nobody would be getting any "free" service from this scheme. THERE IS NO THEFT OF SERVICE HERE... EVERY minute that is used is charged for. 3) When a person wants more than one cell phone on the same number, the intent is generally NOT to defraud anyone (actual cell phone service thieves excepted - and they could be prosecuted under a whole multitude of existing laws). Rather, it's generally an issue of convience - for example, a person wants a handheld portable phone to carry on their person, AND a car phone which works much better when one is driving down the road. Many of the people who do this don't even want to use two phones at once, although if they could, they still wouldn't be defrauding anyone (see point #2). What we have here is a duopoly industry that, like many telecommunications companies that have a full or partial monopoly in the marketplace, has attempted to charge a high price for something that costs them little or nothing to provide. In effect, they have written the rules in such a way as to be most advantageous to them, and then convinced the legislators to write their rules into law. This stinks, IMHO. You can argue that having two cell phones with the same ESN is illegal, and I won't dispute that although I will comment that this is the sort of law that causes people to disrespect the law (that's a whole other discussion for another group). But when you start using words like "fraud or theft of services", then I must disagree. That may be the way that the cellular industry would like you to think about this matter, but just because some big industry that has a little clout with Congress manages to get a bad law passed does not mean I am going to change the way I think about the issue, and I just plain don't believe that there is any "theft" involved here whatsoever. Now I will add this to that: If the cellular telephone companies priced their service in such a way that each account paid a flat monthly fee and got unlimited airtime, then there would be validity to your comments BUT ONLY IF two or more cell phones were used on the same account at the same time. But, at least in this area, nobody's offering flat rate cellular service (not even during off-peak periods) AND my understanding is that you can't use two cell phones on the same account at the same time anyway because most cell systems won't allow it. > Also, TRW has invented a 'fingerprinting' scheme that measures components > of your signal, such as time to ramp the power up, frequency variations > at start, timing variations, and is being used by some providers to > disallow 'illegal' clones. This will even distinguish between two phones > of the same model, and would result in refusal of service to even your > 'legal' phone, or possible blacklisting of your ESN. If two phones are > accidently on at the same time, that could be discovered and result in > service being discontinued. I've heard this, and the first thing that croosed my mind was that now the cell companies had another way to bleed their customers. Granted that fraud is a real problem, but they could allow a customer to use two phones (or even two ESN's) on the same account, at probably little or no increase in cost to the cell company. In fact, they'd probably make even MORE money from the increased airtime charges. Just my opinion. Jack Jack Decker | "What were once options are now mandates!" aa931@detroit.freenet.org =or= ao944@yfn.ysu.edu (that's an "o", not a zero!) "Why are insurance companies allowed to discriminate against certain classes of people, when no other business can get away with it?"