Dear Friends of Wireless Messaging,

Aaron Osgood of Streamline Solutions sent in a link to this excellent article discussing NexTel's approach to text messaging. It is a little too long to reproduce here, but it has some very interesting content about paging.

One good friend commented that maybe I shouldn't be showing everyone how the government can legally monitor our communications. (CALEA, etc.) My position on this issue is:

• All the information can easily be found on the web using Google's search engine
• While I consider myself a patriotic citizen, greatly in favor of catching drug dealers, terrorists, and other bad people—still our wonderful government doesn't have the best record when it comes to sticking their noses into places where they have no right to go:
  • J. Edgar Hoover's "investigations" and;
  • Richard Nixon's—Watergate scandal, for two examples
  • there are many others
• Whistle blowers and reporters of news are what keep governments honest in a free society

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. These are mine; what are yours?

Oh, by the way, last week I "declared" that this newsletter now has a goodwill value of one billion dollars! I haven't received a single offer to buy it, but I forgot to mention that the price is negotiable.

Keep laughing and stay healthy.

This just in:

Sprint Expands Family Locator Service to All Handsets

Mark my words: "location will be a big deal in wireless communications."

ReFLEX s/w engineer needed.
[Contact me.]

Now on to more news and views . . .

Wireless Messaging Newsletter
VoIP Wi-Fi Paging WiMAX Telemetry Location Services Wireless Messaging	WIRELESS MESSAGING

This newsletter is brought to you by the generous support of our advertisers and the courtesy of iland Internet Solutions Corporation. For more information about the web-hosting services available from iland Internet Solutions Corporation, please click on their logo to the left.

There is no charge for subscription and there are no membership restrictions. Readers are a very select group of wireless industry professionals, and include the senior managers of many of the world's major Paging and Wireless Data companies. There is an even mix of operations managers, marketing people, and engineers—so I try to include items of interest to all three groups. It's all about staying up-to-date with business trends and technology. I regularly get readers' comments, so this newsletter has become a community forum for the Paging, and Wireless Data communities. You are welcome to contribute your ideas and opinions. Unless otherwise requested, all correspondence addressed to me is subject to publication in the newsletter and on my web site. I am very careful to protect the anonymity of those who request it.

NOTE: This newsletter is best viewed at screen resolutions of 800x600 (good) or 1024x768 (better). Any current revision of web browser should work fine. Please notify me of any problems with viewing. This site is compliant with XHTML 1.0 transitional coding for easy access from wireless devices. (XML 1.0/ISO 8859-1.)

A CONSULTING ALLIANCE

Brad Dye, Ron Mercer, and Vic Jackson are friends and colleagues who work both together and independently, on wireline and wireless communications projects. Click here  for a summary of their qualifications and experience. They collaborate on consulting assignments, and share the work according to their individual expertise and their schedules.

American Association of Paging Carriers
February 4, 2008

BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20554

To: The Commission, en banc

COMMENTS OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PAGING CARRIERS

     The American Association of Paging Carriers (AAPC), by its Task Force on Emergency Communications, respectfully submits its comments to the Federal Communications Commission in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the captioned proceeding, FCC 07-214, released December 14, 2007 and published at 73 Fed. Reg. 545 (January 3, 2008). As its comments on the NPRM, AAPC respectfully states:

Introduction and Background

     In this proceeding the Commission seeks public comment on a variety of issues concerning the report and recommendations of the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee (CMSAAC) dated October 12, 2007.¹ The Report and this rulemaking, in turn, are mandated by Sections 602 and 603 of the WARN Act passed in 2006,² and will lay the foundation for a nationwide Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS), in which emergency alerts will be transmitted to the public by those Commercial Mobile Radio Service providers (as defined in Section 332(d)(1) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §332(d)(1),³ and implementing Commission regulations)⁴ electing to participate in the service.

     AAPC is the national trade association representing the interests of paging carriers throughout the United States. Paging carriers are classified as Commercial Mobile Radio Service providers pursuant to Section 20.9 of the Commission’s rules,5 and thus may elect to participate in the CMAS that will be implemented as a result of this and companion rulemaking proceedings. One of the standing committees operating under AAPC’s umbrella is the Paging Technical Committee, which is responsible for common protocols and industry accepted device specifications for all of the paging industry. AAPC’s members include the majority of paging operators holding nationwide licenses under Parts 22, 24 and 90 of the Commission’s rules; a representative cross-section of operators of regional and local paging systems licensed by the Commission; as well as equipment suppliers, subscriber device manufacturers and other vendors to the carrier industry. A representative from AAPC also served on the CMSAAC that issued the report under consideration in this rulemaking proceeding.

     AAPC commends the work of the CMSAAC and generally supports the conclusions and recommendations in the Report. Accordingly, AAPC’s comments are primarily intended to underscore and validate CMSAAC’s work insofar as the key issues of importance to the paging industry are concerned.

Available Transport Technologies (NPRM ¶¶8-11)

     For the reasons detailed in its report, the CMSAAC concluded that “[p]oint-to-point and unicast delivery technologies are not feasible or practical for the support of CMAS”. (Report at p. 49). The NPRM cites this conclusion, inquiring generally as to “the availability of technologies now and in the future for the transmission of alerts over the CMAS” and the extent to which “point-to-point and point-to-multipoint technologies provide viable solutions for a national CMAS”. (NPRM at ¶8). The NPRM also inquires whether the “higher layer protocol” envisioned by CMSAAC for the CMAS “is necessary” and how point-to-point, point-to-multipoint and broadcast models could carry this information and provide the recommended authentication information.” (NPRM at ¶11).

     CMSAAC is unquestionably correct that point-to-point and unicast technologies are not feasible or practical to use for CMAS. If for no other reason, the latency in message delivery inherent in such modes of transport render them essentially useless for any sort of mass alerting system like CMAS. By contrast, point-to-multipoint or “broadcast” technologies such as used in paging networks are ideal for such an application. A paging message that is transmitted nationwide, for example, typically is delivered to receivers across the country in less than two minutes. Even under congested conditions, such as might occur during extreme emergencies, the length of time necessary to delivery an alert nationwide on a paging network would be extended by only a few minutes, and alerts would still be delivered to receivers nationwide in less than ten minutes.

     No doubt there will be other point-to-point and broadcast technologies deployed in the future, or those that are only beginning to be deployed today, that ultimately may prove suitable for CMAS. It is important, therefore, that the standards and procedures adopted today do not preclude future participation by these technologies. It is equally important, however, that the standards and procedures adopted today likewise do not as a practical matter preclude participation by the one class of CMRS provider whose point-to-multipoint and broadcast networks are already suitable for participation in CMAS and are already in service and widely deployed.

     With respect to the higher layer protocol issues flagged by the NPRM, AAPC submits that the mandatory aspects of the protocol should be confined to the A and C interfaces, and should not extend to the subscriber device level. That is, all necessary authentication of alerts should be performed at the A and C interface levels, and the participating carrier should be able to decide for itself how much, if any, of the protocol should be transmitted to the subscriber device. In that way, the different point-to-multipoint or broadcast networks would not in fact have to carry this information at all; and authentication of the alerts at the subscriber device level likewise would not be necessary.

Alert Aggregator (NPRM ¶¶12-13)

     The NPRM notes that the CMSAAC recommends that a federal government entity fulfill the roles of Alert Aggregator, i.e., receiving, accumulating and authenticating alerts originated by authorized alert initiators using Common Alert Protocol (CAP), and of Alert Gateway, i.e., formulating an alert and transmitting it to gateways operated by participating CMRS providers. (NPRM at ¶12). The NPRM requests comment on these recommendations (id.), and inquires whether such a centralized system runs the risk of creating a single point of failure. (NPRM at ¶13).

     In AAPC’s view, having a federal government entity serve as a centralized Alert Aggregator and Alert Gateway is one of the single most important features of CMAS necessary to encourage broad participation by CMRS providers. With a centralized aggregator, a carrier will not face having to maintain connections to numerous different agencies in order to receive alerts, thus making it more feasible for smaller carriers as well as larger carriers to participate in CMAS. A centralized aggregator also will be able to prioritize alerts, a task that participating carriers should not have to undertake. Carriers should function basically as pipelines in the distribution of alerts delivered to the Alert Gateway, and should not have to make or be involved in making judgments about which alerts to distribute. AAPC believes that Aggregator and Gateway functions are thus quintessentially government rather than private functions, and are functions that the federal government is uniquely qualified to perform.

     AAPC also points out that having a centralized aggregator does not inherently create a single point of failure. Both functions can readily be designed with diverse and redundant facilities to eliminate the risk of a single point of failure.

Alert Formatting (NPRM ¶¶15-20)

     The NPRM also cites the CMSAAC’s recommendations on alert payload limitations (90 characters of text) (¶15); the classification of emergency alerts (Presidential-level, Imminent threat to life and property, and Child Abduction Emergency) (¶16); a text-based common alerting message format (¶17); the elements of an alert message (event type or category; area affected; recommended action; expiration time with time zone; and sending agency) (¶18); use of automatic text generation and free-form text (¶19); and a standardized set of alerting messages (¶20). The NPRM requests comments on these recommendations and on possible alternatives. AAPC believes that the CMSAAC has struck an appropriate balance in its recommendations between a reasonably sophisticated CMAS and a CMAS that is not unduly complex or complicated for the user. AAPC supports the balance struck by the CMSAAC and urges the Commission to accept the recommendations as presented.

Geo-targeting (NPRM ¶¶21-22)

     The NPRM requests comment on the level of precision that should be required for the geographical targeting (“geo-targeting”) of CMAS alerts. (NPRM at ¶21). More specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on the CMSAAC’s recommendation that due to current capabilities,“an alert that is specified by a geocode, circle or polygon . . . will be transmitted to an area not larger than the [CMRS provider’s] approximation of coverage for the county or counties with which that geocode, circle or polygon intersects,” as well as CMSAAC’s statement that technical limitations currently preclude dynamic geo-targeting at a level more granular than the county. (Id.). In this regard, the NPRM footnotes the concern expressed by a representative of New York City that it needs to receive alerts at a more granular level than county-wide. (NPRM at ¶22 & n. 40).

     As an initial matter, AAPC respectfully but emphatically submits that requiring the type of dynamic geo-targeting at the county or sub-county level, as suggested by the NPRM, would be an unfortunate and serious mistake. AAPC understands the desire that persons directly in harms way of, say, a tornado or a hazardous materials spill, can be notified that their lives and property are in imminent peril. However, it is a fallacy to conclude from this laudable premise that the persons directly in harms way are the only persons who should receive an alert, and that all others should be excluded from receiving an alert.

     The Commission needs to remember that persons served by the CMAS are, by definition, mobile. Physically, they could be anywhere at all when an alert regarding a particular area is sent, but that does not speak to whether they have a meaningful interest in an alert for a particular area or whether they should receive the information contained in the alert. For example, a hazardous chemical spill in Manhattan obviously would be of interest not only to those persons in the immediate area of the spill; but also those persons in surrounding areas who may be planning to go to the affected area within a short time after the disaster (whether for business reasons, commuting or otherwise), or even those who have relatives or friends living or working in the affected area. For similar reasons, the fact that a tornado is expected to touch down in, say, Fairfax City does not mean that others in the Washington, DC metropolitan area (who may live or work there, or have relatives or friends who do) who do not happen to physically be in Fairfax City at the time do not have a legitimate interest in the information and should be excluded from receiving such an alert. Accordingly, the Commission should not conclude that dynamic geo-targeting as evidently contemplated by the NPRM is necessary or even desirable for CMAS.

     Historically, paging carriers have engineered their networks and service offerings to reflect the mobility needs and traffic patterns of their customers; and those needs typically are not confined to the county-wide or sub-county level travel. As a result, it may not be feasible for paging carriers to confine alerts transmitted over their systems to either a county-wide or sub-county distribution. Paging carriers will honor requests of the alert initiators to geo-target alerts to the extent permitted by their networks, but a rigid requirement to geo-target at no greater than the county or sub-county level is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

Disabled and Elderly User Needs (NPRM ¶23)

     The NPRM cites the CMSAAC recommendation that a common audio attention signal and common vibrating cadence be used solely for CMAS alerts, and inquires whether they are needed for all users. (NPRM at ¶23). The NPRM also seeks comments generally on the CMSAAC recommendations relating to users who are elderly and otherwise have special needs, including the recommendation that legacy mobile devices not be required to support CMAS. (Id.).

     AAPC supports the recommendations of the CMSAAC, and urges that they be adopted by the Commission. In particular, the Commission should not require legacy paging devices to support CMAS. To the extent, if at all, it is technically feasible and cost-effective to retrofit existing devices to support CMAS, such retrofitting can be expected to happen as a matter of course. No specific regulation by the Commission in this area is appropriate.

Non-English Alerts (NPRM ¶24)

     The NPRM also request comment on the technical feasibility of providing alerts in languages other than English, noting the CMSAAC’s suggestion that there may be fundamental technical challenges to implementing parallel alerts in languages other than English. (NPRM at ¶24). AAPC strongly agrees with CMSAAC that having parallel alerts in languages other than English threatens network congestion and latency concerns, and complicates subscriber device designs and capabilities. The decision as to whether alerts should be transmitted in multiple languages is basically a political one, but it is important for the decision-maker to recognize that multiplying the number of parallel alerts to be transmitted comes at the expense of a slower and more costly CMAS.

Notifications (NPRM ¶¶25-29)

     The NPRM requests comment on the CMSAAC’s recommendation that CMRS providers should have discretion to determine how to notify existing and new subscribers that they do not, in whole or in part, participate in CMAS; and on the NPRM’s tentative definition of “point of sale” for purposes of subscriber notification as retail, telephone, Internet-based, via third party resellers. (NPRM at ¶27). The NPRM also inquires what constitutes “clear and conspicuous” notice at the point of sale for purposes of the statutory requirement (NPRM at ¶28); whether the CMSAAC is correct that no disclosure by participating carriers is required (NPRM at ¶29); and how notifications of the election not to participate should be given to existing subscribers. (NPRM at ¶30).

     Again, AAPC supports the recommendations of CMSAAC. Participating carriers doubtless will do their own advertising and promotion of their election to participate in CMAS, so a requirement that they do so would be unnecessary as well as beyond the scope of the statute. Carriers that elect not to participate should not be subject to rigid notification requirements imposed by the Commission, but should instead have latitude as to the manner and form of their compliance with the statute. It would be incongruous, to say the least, to subject carriers to penalties for failing to participate in a CMAS that is supposed to be “voluntary”.

Elections and Related Filings (NPRM ¶¶31-38)

     The NPRM also poses a lengthy series of questions pertaining to the details of a CMRS provider’s notification to the Commission of its initial and subsequent elections to participate in CMAS, and for withdrawing such election, including the mechanics and substance of the notifications. (NPRM at ¶¶31-34). The NPRM also inquires about the procedures necessary to allow a subscriber to terminate service with a carrier that does not participate in CMAS (NPRM at ¶35) and to opt-out of receiving alerts. (NPRM at ¶¶36-37). The NPRM further inquires how the statutory prohibition against “impos[ing] a separate or additional charge for [CMAS] transmission or capability” should be interpreted. (NPRM at ¶38).

     Insofar as the mechanical process of filing or withdrawing an election to participate in CMAS is concerned, AAPC envisions a relatively simple electronic filing process rather similar to designating an agent for service of process. That is, the Commission should maintain a simple electronic form to be filled out online by carriers stating whether they are participating in CMAS or not. The Commission should also maintain a register listing the carriers that participate and, separately, the carriers electing not to participate. Elections to participate should be revocable on not less than 30 days notice.

     Carriers also should be permitted to manage subscriber “opt-outs” of alerts at the network terminal level and not just at the subscriber device level. Doing so at the network level will help simplify the design of subscriber devices and help reduce the cost of such devices. However, carriers should be able to charge for the subscriber devices themselves; the statutory prohibition against charging for CMAS transmission or capability should be interpreted rather narrowly so as to not discourage broad participation by CMRS providers.

Testing (NPRM ¶41)

     Finally, insofar as relevant to AAPC, the NPRM requests comments on the CMSAAC proposed procedures for testing CMAS, including logging CMAS alerts at the Alert Gateway and for testing the system at the Alert Gateway and on an end-to-end basis. (NPRM at ¶41). In this regard, AAPC particularly supports and underscores the CMSAAC recommendation that end-to-end testing should not be seen by subscribers. (Report at p. 79). Mandatory testing at the subscriber device level should be confined to test units and should not extend to devices carried by the public at large.

¹ Commercial Mobile Alert Service Architecture and Requirements, October 12, 2007 (the “Report”), annexed as Appendix B to the NPRM.
² Warning, Alert, and Response Network (WARN) Act, Pub. L. No. 109-347, §§601-613, 120 Stat. 1936-1943 (2006).
³ Although the WARN Act uses the term “commercial mobile service,” it expressly equates that term with “commercial mobile radio service” as defined in 47 U.S.C. §332(d)(1). See WARN Act at §602(b)(1)(A).
⁴ 47 C.F.R. §20.9.
⁵ See 47 C.F.R. §20.9(1), (6), (11).

Advertiser Index

Is Google In or Out of the FCC Spectrum Auction?

02.07.08
By Chloe Albanesius

Is Google an active bidder in the ongoing 700-MHz auction, or just bluffing a pair of deuces?

Despite a pledge last summer to dole out $4.6 billion on the spectrum auction, recent bidding patterns suggest that Google has pulled back now that c-block open access requirements have been met, so that rivals like Verizon and AT&T can duke it out – and fund the inevitably pricey build outs.

"The conventional wisdom is that Google's primary goal is to ensure that the $4.6 billion reserve price is met, so that the open access conditions are binding on the winner, but that they have little desire to own spectrum or operate a network," said Michael Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Program at the New America Foundation.

At issue is a portion of spectrum in the 700-MHz band that will become available once television broadcasters shift from analog to digital signals in early 2009. On January 24, the FCC started auctioning off access to that spectrum to a group of 214 approved bidders. The commission will continue to hold bidding rounds, conducted by phone and via Internet bids, until there is a round in which no bids are placed. The most recent round drew 188 bids.

Bidder identities will remain anonymous until the auction concludes.

The spectrum is broken up into five blocks, A through E. The FCC last year said that should bidding on the c-block reach a reserve price of $4.6 billion, the winner of that spectrum would be required to make it open to all devices and applications.

Bidding on a package of c-block licenses that covers all 50 states reached $4.7 billion last week, securing open access. No new bids were immediately entered, suggesting that Google might have been inching toward the c-block reserve price by itself.

On Monday, however, new c-block bids were placed on the eight regional c-block licenses – not the 50-state package. Bidders can place a bid on the package of eight licenses as a whole or bid on the regional licenses separately. Under FCC rules, if bids on the regional licenses are higher than bids on the package, the spectrum will be sold separately. Bids on the regional licenses now stand at $4.74 billion, trumping the $4.71 billion high bid on the 50-state package.

"It would make perfect sense for Verizon or AT&T to focus on the regional c-block licenses - and acquire the entire c-block if the price exceeded the reserve - and Google stopped bidding," Calabrese said.

"Google's primary interest was that the openness provision was met," said Blair Levin, a telecom analyst at Stifel Nicolaus. Having accomplished that goal, there's no need for them to actively bid on a system that will require expensive build-outs, he said.

Verizon is believed to be the main c-block bidder, though if bids continue to come in on the spectrum, that could mean that either Google is still in the game, or a rival like AT&T is also making a play for the c-block.

"It's quite possible the aggregate c-block bids will rise, if Verizon has competition concerning particular regions; but I doubt that Google would continue bidding much above the current $4.7 billion high bid for c-block nationwide," Calabrese said.

Also of interest in the spectrum auction is the fate of the d-block. The FCC pledged to make that spectrum available to public safety officials should bidding reach a reserve price of $1.3 billion. Thus far, however, the d-block has received only one bid in round one, totaling $472 million. If the reserve is not met, the FCC has the authority to re-auction the spectrum without the public safety requirements.

Round 42 of the auction closed on Thursday morning with $19.6 million in bids, bringing the grand total of the auction thus far to $19.1 billion.

Wireless Messaging Software

AlphaPage® First Responder (Windows 2000, XP, Vista). When the message matters, AlphaPage® First Responder is the fast, reliable, and secure solution Emergency Management Professionals choose. AlphaPage® First Responder is designed for the modern professional who requires full-featured commercial wireless messaging capabilities that include advanced features such as automated Route-on-Failure, custom message templates, and secure messaging with SSL encryption. AlphaCare™ extended premium support plans are also available. For more information on all InfoRad Wireless Messaging software solutions, and fully supported free demos, please click on the InfoRad logo.

CLICK HERE

Motorola Authorized Service Center for Paging and Cellular.

Ask for Special Newsletter Pricing.

Please call: 800-222-6075 ext. 312 for pricing.

Contact

E-mail: whittinghill@minilec.com

Minilec Service, Inc. Suite A 9207 Deering Ave. Chatsworth, CA 91311

Minilec Service

Microsoft is Stupid, Apple is Not

02.07.08
By Jim Lynch

My boss Lance recently wrote a column about how Macs need security software too. In his column he pointed out that Mac users are no smarter than Windows users. I respect where Lance is coming from, we're all human and quite capable of making mistakes. However, I think he got it wrong. It's not necessarily just about the users, it's also about the companies and people who create the operating systems that we use each day. Frankly, there's no other way to say this: Microsoft is stupid and Apple is not.

Security, Security, Security...
If you take a look at the history of OS design by each company, it's pretty clear why this is so. Microsoft has historically made an unreliable, ugly, and highly insecure operating system based on its own spaghetti/Swiss cheese code. This is no secret to anyone who has followed the industry or even used Windows on a daily basis. If you are a Windows users you MUST have spyware/virus/malware prevention software or, sooner or later, your machine is going to get nailed.

It isn't Microsoft bashing to say any of this, it's just the truth for Windows users each day of their computing lives.

Apple, on the other hand, decided long ago to ditch their old operating system and build one that was Unix based. Why did this matter? Well as people have begun to notice, thanks to its Unix roots, Mac OS X is a hell of a lot more stable and secure than any version of Windows ever released. Apple didn't make this choice by chance, they thought it through and knew exactly what they were doing and why.

Mac users simply don't live in the same inherently insecure and fearful universe that Microsoft, through its stupidity and bad programming, has inflicted on Windows users. The difference is night and day, and anyone who has ever switched from Windows over to Mac OS X (or Linux for that matter) knows how liberating it is once you realize that are free and safe from debilitating viruses, spyware, and malware that plague the Windows operating system.

Microsoft is stupid and will never get security right, Apple already has.

Read the full article on ExtremeTech.com.

The Best in Paging Is Also the Biggest!

Zetron’s Model 2700:
Our largest-capacity paging terminal.

• Supports over 1,000,000 subscribers.
• Fully redundant design features RAID-1-mirrored, hot-removable disk drives.
• Supports remote access to Windows®-based user-management software.
• Supports E1 trunks, T1 trunks, analog trunks, and dial-up modems.
• Includes extensive voice-messaging features.
• Provides Ethernet interface for e-mail and paging over the Internet.
• Provides an ideal replacement for Unipage or Glenayre™ systems.
• When used with the Model 600/620 Wireless Data Manager, a simulcast network can be connected to the Model 2700 over Ethernet links.

Contact Zetron today to discuss your paging needs.

Zetron, Inc.
P.O. Box 97004
Redmond, WA 98073-9704 USA
Phone: 425-820-6363
Fax: 425-820-7031
E-mail: zetron@zetron.com
Web: www.zetron.com

SATELLITE CONTROL FOR PAGING SYSTEMS

$500.00 FLAT RATE

TAPS—Texas Association of Paging Services is looking for partners on 152.480 MHz. Our association currently uses Echostar, formerly Spacecom, for distribution of our data and a large percentage of our members use the satellite to key their TXs. We have a CommOneSystems Gateway at the uplink in Chicago with a back-up running 24/7. Our paging coverage area on 152.480 MHz currently encompasses Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Kansas. The TAPS paging coverage is available to members of our Network on 152.480 MHz for $.005 a transmitter (per capcode per month), broken down by state or regions of states and members receive a credit towards their bill for each transmitter which they provide to our coverage. Members are able to use the satellite for their own use If you are on 152.480 MHz or just need a satellite for keying your own TXs on your frequency we have the solution for you.

TAPS will provide the gateways in Chicago, with Internet backbone and bandwidth on our satellite channel for $ 500.00 (for your system) a month.

Contact Ted Gaetjen @ 1-800-460-7243 or tedasap@asapchoice.com CLICK TO E-MAIL

Elgan: Who wants a custom cell phone?

Mike Elgan

February 08, 2008 (Computerworld) Two different companies this week announced two different visions for customizable cell phones. Are we entering a new era, where cell phones are used and sold like laptops — where you snap on extra functionality on the fly or have them built to order?

An Israeli company called Modu yesterday unveiled a GSM phone due in October that enables customization. The core of the Modu product is a tiny phone designed to slide into special "jackets," which are phone exteriors with extra functionality, plus software that instructs the phone about special color schemes and other features. For example, a user might use a "jacket" with a nice camera in it for personal use, then replace that with a "jacket" with a QWERTY keyboard for business use. The company also envisions jackets that aren't phones, such as GPS devices.

Another company called zzzPhone announced build-to-order phones, and claims that buying its phone will be like ordering a PC from Dell. You use its Web site to choose the features you want, and the company will build it for you. Its base model costs $149. You can choose from a range of colors and add additional features, such as a 7-megapixel camera, TV tuner or GPS for additional cost.

The company's initial press release, distributed Monday, said zzzPhone is an American company that makes the phones in a Chinese factory. The release and the company's Web site suggest that the whole operation may be a little shady. For example, the site's specifications page says the zzzPhones will be powered by "Windows Mobile or equivalent." It doesn't know? Still, it's an interesting concept never before tried.

Both Modu and zzzPhone are accurately tapping into unmet demand in the consumer and business handset markets. But it's not demand for their products per se. What they've identified is that phone buyers are fed up with being locked into one single phone for all uses and unsatisfied with the limited handset choices offered by carriers.

Major U.S. carriers have long suffered from a blindness about what people want in handsets, so I'm going to spell it out for them: People want more than one — to be able to use more than one cell phone per data plan and per phone number without being gouged.

If you want two cell phones, the carriers force you into using two different phone numbers and double the cost of the basic wireless plan. (I'm old enough to remember when home network providers doubled your fee when you wanted to add a second PC to the network. Eventually they got a clue.)

The Modu vision, for example, is really all about different phones for different uses. It achieves the dream of "one wireless plan, many handsets" with its core module and varying jackets. Ultimately, it's just a way to transfer your SIM card from one phone to the next, but with a lot of extra plastic and always with the same tiny screen.

All these impressive Modu gymnastics are necessary only because the carriers are too boneheaded to offer what their customers obviously want: the ability to use multiple phones with one account and one phone number. Instead of having available whatever kinds of phones Modu and its partners might make available, imagine being able to switch between the entire universe of available handsets.

To me, the coolest thing about the Modu concept isn't the jackets, but the size of the core phone. It's smaller than a credit card. I'd love to carry this around as one of my phones — say, when I just need a tiny phone. But at other times, I'd also like the option to carry an iPhone, a GPS phone like the Nuvifone and a real QWERTY phone, maybe a BlackBerry, depending on what I'm doing at the time.

Enabling multiple handsets per account would also solve the conundrum businesses face with phones. Companies of all sizes — from small, local businesses to global enterprises — have strong incentives to provide some employees with phones. Doing so enables companies to give secure access to sensitive data, lets employees VPN into the firewall and provides other useful functionality.

The problem is that people want to choose and carry their own phones, too. People want to buy, say, an iPhone for personal use, or some other consumer phone, and still be able to receive calls and e-mail from work on the weekend or in the evening.

The world would be a better place if all carriers provided multiple SIM cards per account and data plan, and all handsets supported multiple SIM cards, which only a few currently do. Your company could provide you with, say, a Treo locked into the corporate network with secure data access and special applications, and you could buy your own iPhone. If both the Treo and the iPhone supported two SIM cards, both work and personal calls could come to both phones, depending on which was activated.

The tragedy here for carriers is lost opportunity. By enabling multiple handsets for single accounts, they could boost handset sales revenue, tack on a small charge (say, $15 extra per month) for each additional handset, provide an incentive for users to upgrade to higher data plans, and upsell business owners to corporate accounts (rather than risk losing that business to other carriers).

I applaud Modu and zzzPhone for trying to provide people with what we really want: handset choice. But I'd rather the carriers just get a clue and give us that choice by enabling multiple handsets per account.

Mike Elgan writes about technology and global tech culture. He blogs about the technology needs, desires and successes of mobile warriors in his Computerworld blog, The World Is My Office. Contact Mike at mike.elgan@elgan.com or his blog, The Raw Feed.

www.daviscommsusa.com

Daviscomms – Product Examples

For information call 480-515-2344 or visit our website
www.daviscommsusa.com
Email addresses are posted there!

Apple beats Microsoft, Motorola in 4Q phone sales

by Nancy Gohring
Feb 6, 2008

Even after being on the market for less than half a year, more iPhones sold in the fourth quarter than Windows Mobile phones in the U.S., according to research from Canalys.

Canalys researchers estimate that the iPhone had 28 percent of the U.S. converged-device market in the fourth quarter of 2007. Research In Motion, with 41 percent, had the largest share of the market. Windows Mobile phones had 21 percent share of devices sold in the quarter, falling into third place behind Apple.

Worldwide, the lineup is a bit different. Nokia, which typically dominates around the world but not in the U.S., sold 52.9 percent of smart phones worldwide in the fourth quarter. RIM grew its share of converged-device sales to 11.4 percent, up 121 percent over the same quarter in 2006. Despite its limited availability around the world, Apple took third place with 6.5 percent of the market, just barely squeaking ahead of struggling Motorola.

Apple may have stirred renewed interest in smart phones in the U.S. Converged-device shipments, which include smart phones and wireless handhelds, grew 222 percent in the U.S. during the quarter, according to Canalys.

The iPhone also did well in the Europe, Middle East and Africa region, where it became available in three countries partway into the quarter. In the region, Apple came in fifth place behind Nokia, RIM, HTC and Motorola, but beat out Sony Ericsson, Samsung and Palm, Canalys said.

Apple's success as a new entrant is striking, but it will face challenges to keep its momentum going, said Canalys analyst Pete Cunningham in a statement. Historically, vendors with just one smart phone design, no matter how good, struggle, he said. That means Apple will have to create and refresh a portfolio of devices if it wants to increase its market share, he said.

Beyond hardware, competition is continuing in the mobile operating system market. Worldwide Symbian, which credits most sales to Nokia, had 65 percent of the market, followed by Microsoft at 12 percent and RIM at 11 percent, for the fourth quarter, Canalys said.

Despite all the buzz around mobile Linux, total Linux phone shipments in 2007 were essentially flat compared to 2006, Canalys found. In Asia Pacific, Motorola had a drop of 28 percent in its Linux smart phone shipments compared to 2006.

Phone makers are trying to attract customers to smart phones, which carry a higher price tag than low-end feature phones. However, converged devices made up just 10 percent of the global phone market in 2007, the researchers found.

Emergency First Responders Seek Better Communication

February 07, 2008: 07:15 AM EST

CHICAGO -(Dow Jones)- Emergency responders see a critical need for better communications equipment, according to a recent survey of public-safety workers around the U.S. That's equally important as adding more staff, survey takers said.

Since the U.S. Department of Homeland Security took charge of disaster management in 2003, it has gradually responded to first responders' needs. New technology generally has become available both to support specific tasks and to provide "interoperability" for a broad range of police, firefighters and even the military to quickly get in touch with each other. Secure handheld devices now allow for reliable communication on wireless networks.

And federal funding has increased, with the Homeland Security Department offering local governments more flexibility in how they spend federal grants.

But more needs to be done, according to a recent survey of 200 U.S. public- safety officials. The survey was co-sponsored by Motorola Inc. (MOT), which makes communications equipment, and the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, or APCO.

Nearly 70% of local workers, from managers to front-line responders, said the biggest threat they face is natural disasters, while just 7% cited terrorist attacks. Others worried about fighting crime and illegal drug use.

Ever since the 2001 terrorist attacks, many local politicians focused on terrorism as the biggest disaster a city can face. That has left some municipalities out of touch with the needs of their first responders, said Dick Mirgon, vice president of APCO and director of technical services for Douglas County, Nevada. Sometimes it's hard for local public-safety agencies to get funding for priority projects, Mirgon said.

According to the survey, first responders' wish lists varied according to their jobs, and whether they work in the city or the country. In rural areas, there's a need for equipment with greater range and speed. In urban settings, first responders were looking for situational awareness technology - for example, a device to show firefighters the inside of a burning building before they get to the scene. That technology hasn't been fully developed, said Tom Quirke, director of product marketing in Motorola's government and public-safety unit.

More than two-thirds of those surveyed agreed that they need more rugged notebook computers and handheld devices, connected to systems that allow seamless communications across different departments.

That sounds simple enough, but it's very costly to build a wireless communications system that can stand up to hurricanes and tornadoes. "People take their cellphones for granted, but commercial networks can't withstand a natural disaster," Mirgon said. "In our business, we need to know that every time an emergency medical technician calls the hospital, a doctor will answer. That requires a system that's too expensive for commercial providers to build for so few users."

As states grapple with disaster communications needs, they can look to Alaska as a model for getting things done, said Motorola's Quirke.

Since 2003, the huge, sparsely populated state has had the nation's first statewide digital radio network, giving state, federal and local workers a common communications infrastructure. The first successful training exercise included 1,500 participants from 30 agencies, from the military to the Valdez Community Hospital.

Even the best system faces challenges, said Jeff Garnett, an electrical equipment technician in the Department of Emergency Management at Miami-Dade County, Florida. For example, he said it can be tough to overcome longstanding rivalries between agencies. "Sometimes the fire department doesn't share information, because they want to handle a situation by themselves. You can have great radios, but if people don't want to talk to each other, there's not much you can do."

-By Ann Keeton, Dow Jones Newswires; 312-750-4120; ann.keeton@dowjones.com

NEWS FLASH — SATELLITE FAILURES

• January 11, 1997—Telstar 401 suffers a short in the satellite circuitry—TOTAL LOSS
• May 19, 1998—Galaxy 4 control processor causes loss of fixed orbit—TOTAL LOSS
• September 19, 2003—Telstar 4 suffers loss of its primary power bus—TOTAL LOSS
• March 17, 2004—PAS-6 suffers loss of power—TOTAL LOSS
• January 14, 2005—Intelsat 804 suffers electrical power system anomaly—TOTAL LOSS

DON’T WAIT FOR THE NEXT SATELLITE OUTAGE

Allow us to uplink your paging data to two separate satellites for complete redundancy! CVC owns and operates two separate earth stations and specializes in uplink services for paging carriers. Join our list of satisfied uplink customers.

• Each earth station features hot standby redundancy
• UPS and Generator back-up
• Redundant TNPP Gateways
• On shelf spares for all critical components
• 24/7 staffing and support

For inquires please call or e-mail Stephan Suker at 800-696-6474 or steves@cvcpaging.com

New ReFLEX Telemetry Module

Easy To Use Small Reliable Data Communications

  ATM300

	RF Protocol:
		ReFLEX™ 2.7.2
	Interface Protocol with host:
		CLP (Motorola FLEXsuite™)
	Parameter Settings:
		PPS Software (PC application)
	Message size—Transmit and Receive:
		Up to 8 Kbytes, depending on carrier)

Download the complete specification here.

CONTACT:
Cory Edwards
Director of Sales & Operations
ATCOM Wireless
Telephone: 800-811-8032 extension 106
Fax: 678-720-0302
E-mail: cory.edwards@suntelecom.com
Web site: www.atcomwireless.com

Want to help the newsletter?

Become a SPONSOR

Promote your company's image with one of these posters.

* cost per week—six-month minimum—or 26 issues

For more details, and pricing on the various advertising options please click here CLICK HERE

Apple Is Third Largest Smart Phone Company Thanks to iPhone

February 6, 2008

Boston (dbTechno) - The Apple iPhone has managed to put Apple in third place as the third largest smart phone supplier in the world. This is an amazing feat since they have only released the Apple iPhone in four countries to date.

Research from analysts at Catalys predicts that the smart phone market will be up 53% in 2007 from 2006, with 118 million units.

Pete Cunningham, senior analyst stated “Apple has shown very clearly that it can make a difference and has sent a wake-up call to the market leaders.”

Apple managed to pop into third place thanks to 2,320,840 Apple iPhones shipped in the fourth quarter of 2007.

This compares to Motorola, who they beat out for third, as Motorola shipped 2,301,260.

Apple now has 6.5% of the smart phone market in that quarter.

They are still behind Research in Motion and Nokia.

Intelligent Solutions for Paging & Wireless Data

WiPath manufactures a wide range of highly unique and innovative hardware and software solutions in paging and mobile data for:

• Emergency Services Messaging
• Utilities Job Management
• Telemetry and Remote Switching
• Fire House Automation
• Load Shedding and Electrical Services Control

PDT2000 Paging Data Terminal
FLEX & POCSAG Built-in POCSAG encoder Huge capcode capacity Parallel, 2 serial ports, 4 relays Message & system monitoring
Paging Controlled Moving Message LED Displays
Variety of sizes Integrated paging receiver
PDR2000/PSR2000 Paging Data Receivers
Highly programmable, intelligent PDRs Message Logging & remote control Multiple I/O combinations and capabilities Network monitoring and alarm reporting
Specialized Paging Solutions
Remote switching & control Fire station automation PC interfacing & message management Paging software and customized solutions Message interception, filtering, redirection, printing & logging Cross band repeating, paging coverage infill, store and forward Alarm interfaces, satellite linking, IP transmitters, on-site systems
Mobile Data Terminals & Two Way Wireless  Solutions
	Fleet tracking, messaging, job processing, and Field service management Automatic vehicle location (AVL), GPS CDMA, GPRS, ReFLEX, conventional, and trunked radio interfaces

Contact
Postal Address:	WiPath Communications LLC 4845 Dumbbarton Court Cumming, GA 30040
Street Address:	4845 Dumbbarton Court Cumming, GA 30040
Web site:	www.wipath.com CLICK
E-mail:	info@wipath.com CLICK
Phone:	770-844-6218 Office 770-844-6574 Fax 805-907-6707 Mobile
WiPath Communications

I am an authorized Manufacturer Representative for WiPath Communications. Please contact me directly for any additional information. CLICK

 SEE WEB FOR COMPLETE LIST:
www.preferredwireless.com/equipment CLICK HERE

Too Much To List • Call or E-Mail

Preferred Wireless Rick McMichael 888-429-4171 rickm@preferredwireless.com CLICK HERE www.preferredwireless.com/equipment OR HERE

Preferred Wireless

The newest Internet whodunnit? Who cut the cables?

February 5, 2008 12:44 PM PST
Posted by Charles Cooper

Three undersea fiber-optic cables get cut in just one week, and the conspiracy crowd is already convinced this is the prelude to World War III — or at the very least, a United States bombing assault on Iran.

Truth be told, I'm not ready to dismiss their paranoia completely. Yes, they are nuts but they're not entirely crazy. Look, outside of a handful of Washington insiders, how many of you really thought after September 11 that we'd be in control of Iraq, come winter 2008?

The cable cuts knocked out Internet service in a good chunk of the Middle East and South Asia. (There are reports of a fourth cable out of service but so far that's unconfirmed.) What's behind the disruptions? Two of the cables are owned by Flag Telecom, the other by a consortium of telcos. At this point, the companies suggest the most likely culprit is Mother Nature.

In the absence of further details, that's as plausible an answer as any. But the official explanation has been drowned out by a more cynical take in the blogosphere and some regional news outlets.

My former CNET colleague John Borland has a great piece up at the ABC News site outlining the sequence of what's known so far. In particular, this nugget:

"Undersea cable damage is hardly rare — indeed, more than 50 repair operations were mounted in the Atlantic alone last year, according to marine cable repair company Global Marine Systems. But last week's breaks came at one of the world's bottlenecks, where Net traffic for whole regions is funneled along a single route. "

Not that any rational explanation is going to suffice in our fevered times. After the news broke, one 2003 U.S. government document began to make the rounds as Exhibit No. 1. The heavily redacted Department of Defense information operations report specifically calls out the Internet as potentially an enemy weapons system. (Decide what you will. Here's the link tol the report.)

MOTOROLA OEM
Case Parts

Above is a sample of what we have, call for a full list.
These parts are fully refurbished to like new condition.
New LCDs and Lenses are also available.

'Serving the Paging industry since 1987'

Prism Message Gateway Systems Modular and Configurable

Your Choice of Options

• Radio Paging Terminals
• Voicemail Systems
• E-mail and Network Text Messaging Systems
• Digital Trunk Switching Systems
• Digital Trunk and Voicemail Concentrators
• Remote Network Encoders
• TNPP Network Routers

Popular Choice for Domestic and International

• Commercial Paging Carriers
• Private Paging Systems
• Hospitals
• Public Safety
• Federal, State and Local Government
• Industrial Paging
• Energy Companies – Load Management

Logical Choice

• Replace Outdated, UNLICENSED Paging Terminals
• Eliminate Outrageously High Support Costs
• Add New Paging System with ALL THE FEATURES
• Provide Your Customers With Features They Want
• Designed and Supported by Industry Experts

Go ahead . . . be choosy . . . choose Prism Systems International

Contact

Prism Paging 300 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 100 Roswell, Georgia 30076 USA

Telephone: 678-353-3366

Internet: www.prismpaging.com CLICK HERE

E-mail: prismsales@prismpaging.com CLICK HERE

Prism Paging

See the Prism Paging video

Streaming Video from the
World Business Review web site

Unication’s Paging Products

The Paging Industry expects quality, reliable, and high performance paging products.

We at Unication have listened and delivered.

M90™ Messenger™—Our newest ReFLEX 2-Way Advanced Messaging solution. Finally the Industry has a true replacement for the Motorola T900 but with more features and improved RF performance.

• One-Way Pagers
  • Alpha Elite and Alpha Gold—Our top of the line FLEX™ / POCSAG, 4-line alphanumeric pagers with an identical user interface and comparable RF performance to the Motorola Elite and Gold pagers.
  • NP88—Our newest numeric FLEX / POCSAG pager with the best backlight in the Industry.
• Telemetry
  • We offer RF and decoding solutions.

About Unication Co., Ltd.

• A Taiwan company founded in 1992 with extensive experience designing and manufacturing paging and broadband products.
• An ODM to major telecommunications companies.
• More than 300 associates worldwide with Engineering Design Centers in Taipei, China and Vancouver, BC. The engineering team has years of experience in wireless systems, embedded SW, RF design and protocols for infrastructure and pagers.
• Our Accelerated Life Testing facility ensures the highest quality of products for our customers.
• ISO 9001 and 14001 Certified
• Fully licensed by Motorola for product design technology and the FLEX Family of Protocols.
• Sales and Engineering support office in Arlington, Texas.

Contact Information   Kirk Alland   Unication USA   1901 E. Lamar Blvd.   Arlington, TX 76006   (817) 926-6771   kirk@unication.com

Wireless Communication Solutions

ISI-LX Internet Serial Interface with Protocol Conversion Converts Serial TAP message to SNPP, SMTP, or WCTP Pass through Serial Data to TCP/IP and TCP/IP back to Serial Supports Ethernet or PPP Connection to Internet w/Dial Backup Includes 4 Serial Ports for Multiplexing Traffic

IPG Internet Paging Gateway No Moving Parts Such as Hard Drives or Fans to Fail Supports 10Base-T Network Connection to Internet Accepts HTTP, SMTP, SNPP, and WCTP from Internet Sends TAP or TNPP to Your Paging Terminal

PageTrack Inexpensive method of automating your paging monitoring Uses standard paging receiver Available in 152-158 POCSAG or 929 FLEX (call for others)

Omega Unified Messaging Server Full Featured Internet Messaging Gateway TAP Concentrator and TNPP Routing Functions w/TNPP over Internet Serial Protocols Supported: GCP, SMDI, SMS, TAP, TNPP Internet Protocols Supported: AIM, HTTP, SMPP (out only), SMTP, SNPP, and WCTP Full Featured, Easy-to-use Voice/Fax/Numeric Mail Interface One Number For All Your Messaging Optional Hot-swap Hard Drives and Power Supplies Available

Please see our web site for even more products designed specifically for Personal Messaging carriers. For example, the Omega Messaging Gateway and Email Throttling Gateway (anti-spam).

Contact

Hark Technologies 3507 Iron Horse Dr., Bldg. 200 Ladson, SC 29456

Tel: 843-285-7200

Fax: 843-285-7220

E-mail: sales@harktech.com CLICK

Web: http://www.harktech.com CLICK

Hark Technologies

BloostonLaw Telecom Update

Published by the Law Offices of Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Prendergast, LLP

[Selected portions reproduced here with the firm's permission.]

www.bloostonlaw.com

FCC Says Prerecorded Creditor Calls To Wireless Phones Are Permissible In Certain Circumstances

The FCC has determined that that the prohibition against auto-dialed or prerecorded calls to wireless telephone numbers does not apply to creditors and collectors in certain circumstances. The Commission’s CG Docket No. 02-278 Order clarifying that certain such calls are permissible was published in the February 1 Federal Register. On October 4, 2005, ACA International filed a petition seeking clarification that such a prohibition on auto-dialed or prerecorded calls does not apply to creditors and collectors when calling wireless telephone numbers to recover payments for goods and services received by consumers. Although the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) generally prohibits auto-dialed calls to wireless phones, it also provides an exception for auto-dialed and prerecorded message calls for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party.

Because the Commission has found that auto-dialed and prerecorded message calls to wireless numbers provided by the called party in connection with an existing debt are made with the “prior express consent" of the called party, the Commission clarifies that such calls are permissible. The Commission concludes that the provision of a cell phone number to a creditor, e.g., as part of a credit application, reasonably evidences prior express consent by the cell phone subscriber to be contacted at that number regarding the debt. In its 1992 TCPA Order, the Commission determined that “persons who knowingly release their phone numbers have in effect given their invitation or permission to be called at the number which they have given, absent instructions to the contrary."

The FCC said that the legislative history in the TCPA provides support for this interpretation. Specifically, the House report on what ultimately became section 227 of the Communications Act states that: "[t]he restriction on calls to emergency lines, pagers, and the like does not apply when the called party has provided the telephone number of such a line to the caller for use in normal business communications." The Commission emphasizes that prior express consent is deemed to be granted only if the wireless number was provided by the consumer to the creditor, and that such number was provided during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed. To ensure that creditors and debt collectors call only those consumers who have consented to receive auto-dialed and prerecorded message calls, the Commission concludes that the creditor should be responsible for demonstrating that the consumer provided prior express consent. The creditors are in the best position to have records kept in the usual course of business showing such consent, such as purchase agreements, sales slips, and credit applications.

The Commission encourages creditors to include language on credit applications and other documents informing the consumer that, by providing a wireless telephone number, the consumer consents to receiving auto-dialed and prerecorded message calls from the creditor or its third party debt collector at that number. Should a question arise as to whether express consent was provided, the burden will be on the creditor to show it obtained the necessary prior express consent. Similarly, a creditor on whose behalf an auto-dialed or prerecorded message call is made to a wireless number bears the responsibility for any violation of the Commission's rules. Calls placed by a third party collector on behalf of that creditor are treated as if the creditor itself placed the call. A third party collector may also be liable for a violation of the Commission's rules. In addition, prior express consent provided to a particular creditor will not entitle that creditor (or third party collector) to call a consumer's wireless number on behalf of other creditors, including on behalf of affiliated entities.

The Commission also reiterates that the plain language of section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Communications Act prohibits the use of auto-dialers to make any call to a wireless number in the absence of an emergency or the prior express consent of the called party. The Commission notes that this prohibition applies regardless of the content of the call, and is not limited only to calls that constitute “telephone solicitations." However, the Commission agrees with ACA and other commenters that calls solely for the purpose of debt collection are not telephone solicitations and do not constitute telemarketing. Therefore, calls regarding debt collection or to recover payments are not subject to the TCPA's separate restrictions on “telephone solicitations."

The Commission affirms that a predictive dialer constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system and is subject to the TCPA's restrictions on the use of auto-dialers In its Supplemental Submission, ACA argues that the Commission erred in concluding that the term "automatic telephone dialing system" includes a predictive dialer. ACA states that debt collectors use predictive dialers to call specific numbers provided by established customers, and that a predictive dialer meets the definition of auto-dialer only when it randomly or sequentially generates telephone numbers, not when it dials numbers from customer telephone lists.

As noted above, the Commission first sought comment on predictive dialers in 2002 and asked whether using a predictive dialer is subject to the TCPA's auto-dialer restrictions. The Commission found that, based on the statutory definition of "automatic telephone dialing system," the TCPA's legislative history, and current industry practice and technology, a predictive dialer falls within the meaning and definition of auto-dialer and the intent of Congress. The Commission noted that the evolution of the teleservices industry had progressed to the point where dialing lists of numbers was far more cost effective, but that the basic function of such dialing equipment, had not changed--the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.

The Commission noted that it expected such automated dialing technology to continue to develop and that Congress had clearly anticipated that the FCC might need to consider changes in technology. Moreover, the Commission noted that the TCPA does not ban the use of automated dialing technology. It merely prohibits such technologies from dialing emergency numbers, health care facilities, telephone numbers assigned to wireless services, and any other numbers for which the consumer is charged for the call. Such practices were determined by Congress to threaten public safety and inappropriately shift costs to consumers. Most importantly, the Commission said that, to find that calls to emergency numbers, health care facilities, and wireless numbers are permissible when the dialing equipment is paired with predictive dialing software and a database of numbers, but prohibited when the equipment operates independently of such lists, would be inconsistent with the avowed purpose of the TCPA and the intent of Congress in protecting consumers from such calls.

The FCC said that ACA raises no new information about predictive dialers that warrants reconsideration of these findings. With this ruling, however, the FCC said creditors and debt collectors may use predictive dialers to call wireless phones, provided the wireless phone number was provided by the subscriber in connection with the existing debt. The Commission notes, however, that where the subscriber has not made the number available to the creditor regarding the debt, we expect debt collectors to be able to utilize the same methods and resources that telemarketers have found adequate to determine which numbers are assigned to wireless carriers, and to comply with the TCPA's prohibition on telephone calls using an auto-dialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice message to wireless numbers. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and John Prendergast.

FCC RELEASES ANNUAL REPORT ON STATE OF COMPETITION IN WIRELESS INDUSTRY: The FCC has released its Twelfth Annual Report to Congress on the state of competition in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) industry. The FCC concluded that there is effective competition in the CMRS marketplace. The FCC said the report demonstrates that U.S. consumers continue to experience significant benefits – including low prices, new technologies, improved service quality, and choice among providers – from competition in the CMRS marketplace. The Twelfth Report introduces a new data source that allows for a significantly more granular and accurate analysis of mobile telephone service deployment and competition. The new data source is a set of maps that provide the detailed boundaries of the network coverage areas of every operational mobile telephone carrier in the United States. Using these maps, the FCC was able to estimate: (1) the percentage of the U.S. population covered by a certain number of providers, and (2) the percentage of the population covered by different types of network technologies based on census blocks, rather than counties. Because census blocks are much smaller than counties – there are eight million census blocks versus 3,200 counties in the United States – this enabled a significantly more accurate and granular assessment. The analysis of this data shows the following: (1) Approximately 280 million people, or 99.8 percent of the U.S. population, have one or more different operators offering mobile telephone service in the census blocks in which they live; (2) More than 95 percent of the U.S. population lives in areas with at least three mobile telephone operators competing to offer service; (3) More than half of the U.S. population lives in areas with at least five competing mobile telephone operators; (4) Approximately 99.3 percent of the U.S. population living in rural counties, or 60.6 million people, have one or more different operators offering mobile telephone service in the census blocks within the rural counties in which they live; (5) Approximately 82 percent of the U.S. population lives in census blocks with at least one mobile broadband provider offering service. In addition, during 2006, the number of mobile telephone subscribers in the United States rose from 213 million to 241.8 million, increasing the nationwide penetration rate to approximately 80 percent. The average amount of minutes that subscribers spend using on their mobile devices increased from 708 minutes per month during the second half of 2005 to 714 minutes per month during the second half of 2006. In addition, the volume of text messaging traffic rose from 9.8 billion messages sent during December 2005 to 18.7 billion messages sent during December 2006. Revenue per minute, which can be used to measure the per-minute price of mobile telephone service, remained unchanged during 2006 at $0.07. In a separate statement, Commissioner Michael Copps said: "In past years, I have concurred in the agency’s annual CMRS Competition Report because I believe it relied on insufficiently granular data and did not define the statutory term 'effective competition.' [This] Report makes important strides towards addressing my first concern. The [most recent] analysis relies upon census block data — not county-level data — gathered by an independent data provider. This more granular analysis yields quite a different picture of wireless availability in the U.S. than in past reports. We learn, for example, that only 25% of the U.S. land mass is covered by four or more wireless providers — not 49% (the figure generated by applying last year’s methodology to this year’s data) . . . I nevertheless concur in part in this year’s report because it still fails to define the term 'effective competition.''" BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky and John Prendergast.

COMMENT DATES EXTENDED FOR PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS’ REQUEST FOR “ANTIDISCRIMINATION” CLASSIFICATION FOR TEXT MESSAGING: The FCC has extended the comment cycle for the joint petition for declaratory ruling filed Public Knowledge, Free Press, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, EDUCAUSE, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and U.S. PIRG, asking the FCC to clarify the regulatory status of text messaging services, including short-code based services sent from and received by mobile phones, and declare that these services are governed by the anti-discrimination provisions of Title II of the Communications Act. Comments in this WT Docket No. 08-7 proceeding are now due March 14, and replies are due April 14. The Petitioners assert that text messaging is “rapidly becoming a major mode of speech, as a replacement for and a complement to traditional voice communications,” and that “short codes are developing into an important tool for political and social outreach.” The Petitioners allege that mobile carriers “arbitrarily decide what customers to serve and which speech to allow in text messages, refusing to serve those that they find controversial or that compete with the mobile carriers’ services.” The Petitioners request that the Commission declare that text messaging services are “commercial mobile services” governed by Title II, and thus are subject to the nondiscrimination provisions of Section 202. Alternatively, the Petitioners request that, if the Commission declares that these services are “information services” subject to its Title I authority, the Commission should exercise ancillary jurisdiction to apply the non-discrimination provisions of Title II to text messaging services. Petitioners also request that, in either case, the Commission should declare that refusing to provision a short code or otherwise blocking text messages because of the type of speech, or because the party seeking such service is a competitor, is “unjust and unreasonable discrimination” in violation of law. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and John Prendergast.

MARCH 1: CPNI ANNUAL CERTIFICATION. Although the rules do not specify when carriers should modify and complete their “Annual Certification of CPNI Compliance” for 2007, we recommend that you do so as soon as possible. The certification must be filed with the FCC by March 1. Note that the annual certification should include the following three required Exhibits: (a) a Statement Explaining How The Company’s Operating Procedures Ensure Compliance With The FCC’S CPNI Rules to reflect the Company’s policies and information; (b) a Statement of Actions Taken Against Data Brokers; and (c) a Summary of Customer Complaints Regarding Unauthorized Release of CPNI. A company officer with personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the rules must execute the Certification, place a copy of the Certification and accompanying Exhibits in the Company’s CPNI Compliance Records, and forward the original to BloostonLaw for filing with the FCC by March 1. BloostonLaw is prepared to help our clients meet this requirement, which we expect will be strictly enforced, by assisting with preparation of their certification filing; reviewing the filing to make sure that the required showings are made; filing the certification with the FCC, and obtaining a proof-of-filing copy for your records. Clients interested in obtaining BloostonLaw's CPNI compliance manual should contact Gerry Duffy (202-828-5528) or Mary Sisak (202-828-5554).

REWARD

A REWARD OF 500 MICROFARADS IS OFFERED FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE ARREST OF THIS DESPERATE CRIMINAL.

HOP-A-LONG CAPACITY. THIS UNRECTIFIED CRIMINAL ESCAPED FROM A WESTERN PRIMARY CELL WHERE HE HAD BEEN CLAMPED.

IN IONS AWAITING THE GAUSS CHAMBER. HE WAS CHARGED WITH THE INDUCTION OF AN 18 TURN COIL NAMED MILLIHENRY WHO

WAS FOUND CHOKED AND ROBBED OF VALUABLE JOULES. HE IS ARMED WITH A CARBON ROD AND IS A POTENTIAL KILLER.

CAPACITY IS ALSO CHARGED WITH DRIVING A DC MOTOR OVER A WHEATSTONE BRIDGE AND REFUSING TO LET THE BAND-PASS.

IF ENCOUNTERED, HE MAY OFFER A SERIES OF RESISTANCE. THE ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE SPENT THE NIGHT SEARCHING FOR HIM.

IN A MAGNETIC FIELD, WHERE HE HAD GONE TO EARTH. THEY HAD NO SUCCESS AND BELIEVED HE HAD RETURNED OHM VIA A SHORT CIRCUIT. HE WAS LAST SEEN RIDING A KILOCYCLE WITH HIS FRIEND EDDY CURRENT WHO WAS PLAYING A HARMONIC.

For Those Who Understand, No Explanation Is Necessary. For Those Who Do Not Understand, No Explanation Is Possible.

EMERGENCY AUTOMATION & NOTIFICATION

• FIREHOUSES • SCHOOLS • PUBLIC FACILITIES • GOVERNMENT FACILITIES • EMERGENCY ROOMS •

WHAT DO FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES, WISPS, HAVE IN COMMON?

THEY ALL USE NIGHTHAWK.

Nighthawk Systems Inc. manufactures low cost and reliable remote control products for fire house alerting, volunteer alerting, activation of warning signs and sirens, and a number of applications for public safety. The Company manufactures the EA1 and the FAS-8 which have been designed specifically for these applications. Both products are paging based and will work with any public or private paging network. They are available in all VHF, UHF, and 900 MHz paging frequencies. The products can serve as the primary notification system or an excellent, low-cost backup to existing systems.

The EA1 is the solution for remotely activating public warning signage. Examples include tornado sirens, flash flood warnings, fire danger, Amber Alert, icy roads, etc. The EA1 can also send text messages to scrolling signs. This can occur in conjunction with the activation of audible alarms and visual strobes. This is ideal for public notification in buildings, schools, hotels, factories, etc. The group call feature allows for any number of signs or flashing lights to be activated at the same time over a wide geographic area. In addition, the EA1 Emergency Alert is the perfect solution for low cost yet highly effective alerting of volunteer fire fighters in their home. When activated the EA1 will emit an audible alarm and activate the power outlet on the units faceplate. A common setup is to simply place the EA1 on a table and plug a lamp into the faceplate. When paged from dispatch or any touch tone phone the EA1 will awaken the fire fighter to a lit room. As an option the EA1 can be ordered with a serial cable, allowing for attachment of a serial printer. When paged the alphanumeric message will be printed out at the same time the alarm sounds and the outlet is activated. The EA1 is an ideal complement to alphanumeric belt pagers common to volunteers.

The FAS-8 is designed for activating one or more relays in a firehouse and if desired, printing the alphanumeric message to a serial printer. For this application the FAS-8 is set to activate upon receiving the proper paging cap code sent from 911 dispatch. Up to eight different devices can be activated all with individual time functions. The most common devices to turn on include the PA amplifier, audible wake up alarm, and house lights. The most common device turned off is the stove. The FAS-8 can accept up to 8 different cap codes and have separate relay and time functions per cap code. This allows for different alerting to be accomplished at the same physical location depending upon which cap code is sent. This can be very helpful when fire crews and medical crews are housed in the same building.

FAS8

Put the innovative technology of Nighthawk to work for you. For more information on any of our products or services, please contact us.

Nighthawk Systems, Inc.
10715 Gulfdale, Suite 200
San Antonio, TX 78216

Phone: 877-764-4484
Fax: 210-341-2011
E-mail: sales@nighthawksystems.com
Web: www.nighthawksystems.com

PAGING & WIRELESS
NETWORK PLANNERS LLC

WIRELESS SPECIALISTS

www.pagingplanners.com
rmercer@pagingplanners.com

R.H. (Ron) Mercer Consultant 217 First Street South East Northport, NY 11731
• Cell Phone: 631-786-9359

Advertise Here

Your company's logo and product promotion can appear right here for six months. It only costs $600.00 for a full-size ad in 26 issues—that's only $23.08 an issue. (6-month minimum run.)

Read more about the advertising plans here. CLICK HERE

Complete Technical Services For The
Communications and Electronics Industries
Design • Installation • Maintenance • Training

Ira Wiesenfeld, P.E.
Consulting Engineer
Registered Professional Engineer

If you see someone in the field (like salespeople, technicians, and delivery people) using paper forms, their company could probably save a pile of money, and get much better timeliness, accuracy and efficiency, by using converting to Outr.Net's Wireless Forms. Custom applications for as little as $995, delivered in just a few days.Outr.Net has a web page on Wireless Forms for Timeports at: http://www.outr.net/overnight_pw.htm Their latest newsletter is: "Business Development in Mobile Data"

Please call me so we can discuss your need or your idea. Or contact me by e-mail for more information

From: Vaughan Bowden [mailto:vaughan@easysolutions4you.com]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 3:50 PM
To: Brad Dye
Subject: Data Logging and Privacy

Hi Brad,

Nice talking to you yesterday about the paging business... as follow-up to our conversation on data logging in the GL3000 please see the following additional information:

The GL3000 does not provide a long term storage facility for data messages. In some configurations the voice and data mailbox can provide the ability for the end user to retransmit a message. In this case the message in limited to the last 25 (or to 63) messages.

In cases where the operator wishes to archive messages or make messages available for long term storage one has to enable a logging function and capture the data externally.

We have a product called AMS (Alarm Management System) that captures various Glenayre data feeds (end user pages, status messages, alarms, billing records, etc). Messages are captured, parsed and then processed in a flexible manner that gives the operator many options. Some examples include:

• Play WAVE Files.
  • Play Audible Sounds and Messages to draw attention to critical alarms messages.
• Display Message on User Definable Display Screens.
  • Separate messages and display into user selectable display windows (i.e. Trivial, Normal, Critical Displays).
• Log To File.
  • Separate messages into user selectable log files (i.e. Low, Medium, High Priority Alarm Logs; Billing Logs; Database Record Logs, etc.).
• Page Out.
  • Forward paging messages and alarms to local and "off net" paging systems.
• E-mail Out.
  • Forward paging messages and alarms to e-mail addresses.
• Disable Pager.
  • Identify records that are creating excessive traffic and system delays, then automatically disable the offending subscriber record(s).
• Log To Database.
  • Write paging messages and alarms to an external database.

In this example, AMS provides a flexible platform for logging the end user messages into a database than can be used for long term storage and other custom applications. Hospitals often demand that we log and provide easy access to messages that go to the pagers. They often want the input time, output time, input trunk / data feed ID as well as the actual paging message.

You can find additional information on this product on my web site http://www.easysolutions4you.com/AMS.html

Best regards,

Vaughan Bowden

Easy Solutions
972-898-1119
vaughan@easysolutions4you.com

From: James Dabbs
Subject: Hunetec
Date: February 4, 2008 5:48:38 AM CST
To: Brad Dye

Hi Brad,

Hunetec is currently having e-mail and web trouble with their hosting service. This is difficult to resolve quickly because of the major holiday over there (Lunar New Year).

In the interim, they can be reached by telephone through their main switchboard:

+82-31-707-3430 (voice)
+82-31-707-3464 (fax)

Also, I can provide alternative e-mail contact information. If anyone needs this, please contact me directly.

Thanks,

——
James Dabbs
Critical Response Systems, Inc.
1670 Oakbrook Drive, Suite 370
Norcross, GA 30093-1849
770-441-9559 x126
jdabbs@criticalresponse.com

From: Jeff Sohn
Date: February 5, 2008 9:38:17 AM CST
To: Brad Dye
Subject: Page logging/ANI

Brad,

Reference your issues on logging pages and noting their source I would like to make these comments:

We have been logging all of our pages for probably 10 years by using the printer output from the switch (originally a Zetron 2200 and now a Prism). We internally created a logging program that stores the information and a search program called Jsearch that allows us to find a list of pages by cap code, pin, or body text by date. It is fast an easy.

Since we are using the Zetron 600/620 satellite controller for our system, we also keep a separate log of pages actually sent for a secondary record of the page.

As to the source, we get most of our pages in a feature group D form with ANI. Bob Webb from Prism and formally BBL has done a fantastic job of making the software in the Prism deal properly with the ANI riding on the feature group D. ATT won’t give this any more unless you get SS7 but most of our traffic flows through a SS7 front end switch and they give us MF with ANI. Also our toll free calls come with ANI.

This has been very useful when tracking a rouge caller. If the page comes by web, our web paging program also logs origination. This also has been instrumental when weird things happen.

Jeff

Jeff.Sohn@jsmcom.com

From: John Carlin
Subject: Employment Opportunities SpaceData
Date: February 5, 2008 1:12:37 PM CST
To: Brad Dye

Brad,

I am not familiar with any particular "help wanted" services that your newsletter provides, but I thought I would send along a few positions that Space Data is currently seeking in the hopes that some of your readers may have an interest.

They are as follows:

• Software Engineer: Chandlers, AZ (Attached)
• Field Technician: This position services TX, OK, and LA and is preferred to be located in the Dallas region of TX.
• Outside Sales: Farmington, NM and Oklahoma City, OK regions.

If anyone does have an interest, please ask him or her to send their resume to careers@spacedata.net

Thanks Brad
John D. Carlin
Space Data
John.Carlin@SpaceData.net

With best regards,

Newsletter Editor

73 DE K9IQY

Brad Dye, Editor
The Wireless Messaging Newsletter
P.O. Box 13283
Springfield, IL 62791 USA

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

—Ayn Rand