Greetings Loyal Readers, and Friends of Wireless Messaging,

Danger’s SideKick finally gets to the end of the line May 31st

The SideKick by Danger is surely one of the most iconic mobile devices ever known. This simple slider device arguably changed parts of mobile world as we know it. It bridged the gap between the two way pager and cell phone. Of course there were ‘smarter’ phones on the market when the Sidekick came around but none of these smart phones were appealing to the younger generations, let alone affordable. In some ways the Sidekick was the precursor to the influx of smart phones everywhere. Young to old, a web enabled smart phone can be found everywhere. Thank you Sidekick for helping open this door and goodbye for now!

In a press release earlier this week T-Mobile announced the death of the Danger Services on behalf of Microsoft. The plug will be pulled on this service on May 31st 2011. Danger is a subsidiary of Microsoft and it seems that the company feels it’s time to finally pull the plug on Sidekick support. T-Mo has stated that they will be initiating ‘offers’ to current Sidekick owners to transition them off of their SideKicks an onto a different model device. An “enhanced Web tool” as the carrier calls it is available on their website that will allow existing Sidekicks users to export the data on their Sidekicks for easy transfer onto a new phone. The data you will be able to save include contacts, photos, calendar, notes, to-do lists and bookmarks from the Sidekicks browser. But it does not stop there. The carrier will be offering Sidekick users half off select Samsung devices now through May 31st, alternatively you can choose to cancel your existing contract and avoid paying early termination fees. A peculiar ‘catch’ in these two options is you would have to sign a new two year contract with the company if you choose to pick up one of the select ‘half-off’ Samsung devices.

The carrier has been issuing letters of the changes to existing customers letting them know the deal as well as mentioning the rebirth of the timeless device under the supervision of Android. Yes the SideKick 4G will be on the way and surely launch before the May 31st deadline. This new Sidekick will be an Android device that will also be 4G compatible and its services will not be killed off anytime soon.

Source: WirelessGround.com Blog

Now on to more news and views.

Wireless Messaging News
Emergency Radio Communications Wireless Messaging Critical Messaging Telemetry Paging VoIP Wi-Fi WiMAX Location-Based Services	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 Messaging 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 Messaging 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.

Editorial Opinion pieces present only the opinions of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of AAPC, its publisher, or its sponsors.

Brad Dye, Ron Mercer, Allan Angus, 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.

If you would like to have information about advertising in this newsletter, please click here. Your support is needed.

American Association of Paging Carriers

AAPC SEEKS INPUT ON FCC BIENNIAL RULE REVIEW

AAPC is seeking comments from interested members of the paging industry on two rules the FCC has designated for review under the federal Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The RFA generally requires the FCC to periodically review rules it has promulgated which have, or might have, a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA requires the FCC in the course of its review to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, to minimize any significant economic impact of such rules upon a substantial number of small entities.

Two FCC rules included within the scope of the current review are Section 1.928, dealing with frequency coordination with Canada, and Section 54.708, defining the de minimis exemption from contribution requirements to the Universal Service Fund. Numerous other rules have also been targeted for review, but AAPC believes that Sections 1.928 and 54.708 may have the most relevance to the paging industry.

Section 1.928 provides that applications for frequency assignments above 30 MHz and above Line A (as well as certain other geographic areas outside the continental United States) must be coordinated with and approved by Canada as well as by the FCC. An exception to the coordination requirement exists in subsection (d) for frequency assignments in any radio service other than domestic public land mobile and domestic public fixed if “a base station assignment has been made previously under the terms of this arrangement . . . in the same radio service and on the same frequency and in the local area, and provided the basic characteristics of the additional station are sufficiently similar technically to the original assignment to preclude harmful interference to existing stations across the border.” AAPC understands that the FCC’s practice under this rule for Part 90 stations is to avoid referring applications to Canada if the interfering contour within Line A does not exceed the interfering contour of a previously approved station on the same frequency. AAPC further understands, however, that the same practice is not followed for Part 22 applications, and that Canada remains extremely restrictive in reviewing coordination requests for Part 22 applications despite the supplanting of VHF and UHF mobile telephone service in Canada by cellular service in the 800 MHz band.

As a result, AAPC believes that in practice it is very difficult, if not nearly impossible, to obtain coordination for sites proposed for Part 22 geographic licenses above Line A. AAPC therefore invites Part 22 licensees to provide it with information concerning their experience, successful or otherwise, in requesting coordination with Canada. Based on the information available to it, AAPC may request that the domestic public land mobile exception be deleted from Section 1.928(d), so that Part 22 and Part 90 applications are subject to the same policy when the FCC decides whether or not to refer an application to Canada for coordination.

Section 54.708 of the FCC’s rules excludes a paging carrier (and other telecommunications carriers) from the requirement to contribute to the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) if its contribution is less than $10,000 during a calendar year. However, there is no similar exemption for contributions to the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS), North American numbering administration (NANPA) or shared costs of local number portability (LNP); and paging carriers within the de minimis exemption for USF contributions nonetheless must contribute to the costs of TRS, NANPA and LNP.

AAPC believes that the RFA raises two issues in connection with Section 54.708 of the rules. The first issue is whether the $10,000 exemption should be increased. This limit was first adopted in the mid-1990s in the course of implementing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It has not been modified in the nearly 15 years since it was adopted, despite the economic inflation that has occurred and the growth in the size of the USF and the USF contribution factor that also has incurred. AAPC therefore seeks information from paging carriers about the extent to which, if at all, the $10,000 limit on the de minimis exemption has become or is likely to become burdensome with the passage of time. AAPC also seeks recommendations as to an appropriate exemption level, if the $10,000 limit is increased.

Second, AAPC seeks information from paging carrier about the extent to which contributions to TRS, NANPA and LNP may have become burdensome over time. AAPC intends to evaluate the information it receives to determine whether to request that carriers exempt from USF contributions as a result of the de minimis exemption likewise should be exempt from TRS, NANPA and LNP contributions.

The date for comments to the FCC has not been set as of this writing. However, AAPC requests that any information related to these issues be submitted to it not later than Friday, April 15, 2011. Information should be submitted to AAPC’s counsel at kenhardman@att.net.

Thanks to our Premier Vendor!

Prism Paging

Thanks to our Silver Vendors!

Method Link, LLC

Unication USA

Thanks to our Bronze Vendors!

• Critical Response Systems, Inc.
• Daviscomms (S) Pte. Ltd
• Digital Paging Company
• DX Radio Systems
• Hark Technologies
• InfoRad
• ISC Technologies
• Microspace Communications Corporation
• Onset Technology
• RF Demand Solutions
• Swissphone Telecom
• United Communications Corporation
• WiPath Communications

Advertiser Index

hmce@bellsouth.net	Click to e-mail
http://www.h-mce.com	Paging Web Site
Joshua's Mission	Helping Wounded Marines Homepage
Joshua's Mission	Joshua's Mission Press Release

Newsletter Supporter

Newsletter Supporter

Newsletter Supporter

New Ad Coming Soon

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

GPS chaos: How a $30 box can jam your life

21:00 06 March 2011 by David Hambling
NewScientist

Signals from GPS satellites now help you to call your mother, power your home, and even land your plane – but a cheap plastic box can jam it all

IT WAS just after midday in San Diego, California, when the disruption started. In the tower at the airport, air-traffic controllers peered at their monitors only to find that their system for tracking incoming planes was malfunctioning. At the Naval Medical Center, emergency pagers used for summoning doctors stopped working. Chaos threatened in the busy harbour, too, after the traffic-management system used for guiding boats failed. On the streets, people reaching for their cellphones found they had no signal and bank customers trying to withdraw cash from local ATMs were refused. Problems persisted for another 2 hours.

It took three days to find an explanation for this mysterious event in January 2007. Two navy ships in the San Diego harbour had been conducting a training exercise. To test procedures when communications were lost, technicians jammed radio signals. Unwittingly, they also blocked radio signals from GPS satellites across a swathe of the city.

Why would a GPS outage cause such disruption? These satellite signals now do a lot more than inform your car's satnav. GPS has become an "invisible utility" that we rely on without realising. Cellphone companies use GPS time signals to coordinate how your phone talks to their towers. Energy suppliers turn to GPS for synchronising electricity grids when connecting them together. And banks and stock exchanges use the satellites for time-stamps that prevent fraud. Meanwhile, our societies' reliance on GPS navigation is growing by the year.

Some are worried that we are now leaning too heavily on a technology that can all too easily fail — and it doesn't need a freak navy training exercise to cause havoc. Their biggest concern is a GPS jammer — a plastic device that can sit on car dashboards. These can be bought on the internet, and tend to be used by say, truckers who don't want their bosses to know where they are. Their increasing use has already caused problems at airports and blocked cellphone coverage in several cities. One jammer can take out GPS from several kilometres away, if unobstructed. No surprise, then, that researchers across the world are scrambling to find ways to prevent disastrous GPS outages happening.

Weak signal

GPS works thanks to radio signals from satellites. The dominant provider is still the US military's NavStar network, with at least 24 satellites operating at any given time, positioned so that you can always see four of them from anywhere on the planet's surface.

Each satellite continually broadcasts its location and the time as measured by its on-board atomic clock. A GPS receiver compares the time with its own clock, and then calculates how far it must be from each satellite. Once it locks on to at least four satellites and has accounted for errors, it will discover its precise location (see graphic below). Nowadays, many receivers also use GPS for cheap and convenient access to the accurate time given by the satellites' clocks.

"The problem is that the GPS signal is very weak. It's like a car headlight 20,000 kilometres away," says consultant David Last, former president of the UK's Royal Institute of Navigation. You can't boost the signal any further because of the limited power supply on a satellite.

Last has first-hand experience of how easy it is to block a GPS signal, and the effects it can have on modern technology. In 2010, he conducted an experiment in the North Sea, aboard the THV Galatea, a 500-tonne ship. The Galatea is the pride of its fleet, with all the latest navigation equipment. Last wanted to find out how it would cope without GPS. So he used a simple jamming device that overwhelmed the GPS signal by broadcasting noise on the same frequency as the satellites.

When Last activated the jammer, the ship went haywire. According to the electronic display on the ship's bridge, the Galatea was suddenly flying at Mach speeds over northern Europe and Ireland. Then alarms sounded. The ship's navigation backup — its gyrocompass — crashed, because it uses GPS to provide corrections. The radar did the same. Even the ship's satellite communications failed, because GPS points the antenna in the right direction. "The crew were well trained and briefed, so they knew what was going on," says Last. "But, like us, they were surprised."

Truck cheats

Last deliberately simulated a simple, commercially available jammer. Though illegal to use in the US, UK and many other countries, these low-tech devices can be bought on the internet for as little as $30. Sellers claim they're for protecting privacy. Since they can block devices that record a vehicle's movements, they're popular with truck drivers who don't want an electronic spy in their cabs. They can also block GPS-based road tolls that are levied via an on-board receiver. Some criminals use them to beat trackers inside stolen cargo. "We originally expected that jammers might be assembled by spotty youths in their bedrooms," says Last. "But now they're made in factories in China."

Last is worried that jammers could cause as much havoc on land as he discovered on the Galatea, and he's not alone. In November 2010, a NASA-appointed executive committee for "space-based positioning, navigation and timing" warned that jamming devices could cause disaster if activated in cities. It is not known how many are out there, but the panel is concerned that the risk of interference is growing fast. And in future, devices called "spoofers" — which subtly trick GPS receivers into giving false readings — may make the problem even worse (see "Faking it").

An event last year at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey showed that it only takes one jammer to cause disruption. Airport controllers had installed a new GPS-based landing system, so that aircraft could approach in bad visibility. But it was shutting itself down once or twice a day. It took several months to find the culprit: a driver on the nearby New Jersey Turnpike using a portable GPS jammer to avoid paying the highway toll. This trucker was cruising past twice a day, crippling an airport as he went.

Future generations of air-traffic control won't work without GPS — nor will train routing. The US Federal Railroad Administration has GPS at the heart of its plan for smart management of rail traffic. GPS is also increasingly relied upon for guiding emergency services to the scene.

Invisible utility

What's more, a lot more than navigation ability is lost when GPS fails today. "We rely upon GPS without even being aware of it," says Donald Jewell, who helped to establish GPS from its inception in the US air force, and is now editor of GPS World magazine. It is estimated that more that a billion GPS receivers are now in operation, he says, and more than 90 per cent use the signals only for the accurate time provided by the satellites.

Cellphones are a key user of this invisible utility. Towers must synchronise with each other to pass calls to other towers as you move — a GPS time signal offers a cheap and accurate way to do this. The timing offset for each tower is also used to identify it. In fact, many wireless communication technologies use GPS timing for synchronisation. That's probably why the harbour traffic control and emergency pagers failed in San Diego in 2007.

Time is money

GPS timing can time-stamp financial transactions, such as stock-market trading. And ATMs sometimes communicate wirelessly, using a time-based encrypted code that requires synchronisation. Though it is not known why the cash machines stopped working during the San Diego event, this might have something to do with it.

Energy suppliers use GPS time to keep alternating current from various power plants in phase across the grid. If frequency cycles are not matched, two supplies will partially cancel each other out, creating inefficiency. A precise time signal allows operators to pinpoint the start of each cycle. The US power grid, for instance, requires synchronisation between the supplies of over 5000 companies. Yet in 2006, a temporary GPS outage due to sunspot activity meant that energy companies were not able to see where the power was going, which resulted in false billing. Blackouts due to GPS failure are not out of the question.

Given the potential for disruption, law-enforcers are trying to crack down on GPS jamming. In February, the US Federal Communications Commission announced a new effort to fine jammer sellers and owners. The problem for western authorities is that most sellers are in east Asia and laws tend only to cover the use of a jammer, not its ownership.

Safety net

That's part of the reason why navigation researchers are calling for a back-up. To discuss what to do next, many of them will gather for a meeting next week at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, UK.

Fortunately, there's a backup right under our noses, and the idea been around since the 1940s. Just like GPS, it provides navigation and accurate timing. It's called Enhanced LORAN (eLORAN).

Basic LORAN (for long range navigation) is similar to GPS but uses ground-based radio signals rather than from satellites. It doesn't have global coverage, but does beat GPS on some things. LORAN operates at a far longer wavelength than GPS signals and is more powerful. Both of these features make it virtually impossible to jam.

A new version, eLORAN, uses more reliable transmitters and features improved cesium atomic clocks. With software modifications, it is accurate to about 10 metres, as well as providing a time signal of similar accuracy to GPS. It would be easy to modify future receivers to switch over to eLORAN without the user even noticing, says Last.

In Europe, a team at the UK's General Lighthouse Authorities has been testing eLORAN, and is now recommending that the UK government rolls it out. Across the Atlantic, however, the US government is taking its current LORAN out of service. And it has so far rejected all advice to fund eLORAN: which would cost about $20 million per year — less than it costs to launch one GPS satellite. "We still hold out hope that someone with some foresight and technical know-how in our government will see the light," says Jewell.

Happily, a few decades from now a GPS signal might not be required at all for many things. If atomic clocks get cheaper, then they could be built into everything that needs accurate time. And eventually you'll be able to navigate without any external signals, thanks to devices called "inertial measurement units", which track your movements from a known start point. Today, these IMUs use gyroscopes to measure orientation, plus accelerometers to tell how fast it is accelerating. Using this information, plus time, the acceleration is converted into speed and distance to reveal relative location.

Today, IMUs drift about 1.5 kilometres per hour of travel, and are large and expensive. Yet the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency plans to improve performance with a microchip-sized atomic clock and an equally diminutive, accurate acceleration sensor.

In the meantime, however, a generation is growing up that has never known life without GPS. As jammers proliferate, GPS outages like San Diego are likely to become more common. So next time you lose your cellphone signal, blame the little black box on a car dashboard a few kilometres away.

David Hambling is a writer based in London.

N. Korea Jams GPS to Disrupt S. Korea-U.S. Drills

englishnews@chosun.com / Mar. 07, 2011 09:07 KST

North Korean military units jammed Global Positioning System signals Friday in some parts of South Korea, the government believes.

A government source on Sunday said intermittent GPS failure occurred in northwestern base station coverage areas such as Seoul, Incheon and Paju last Friday. "We suspect the interference was caused by strong jamming signals sent by the North."

The North first attempted to jam GPS signals last August during joint South Korea-U.S. military exercises and the latest attack apparently targeted the current "Key Resolve" drills, intelligence agencies say.

The North has two types of GPS jamming devices — one imported from Russia in the early 2000s and an adapted version. For three to four years it has been circulating a sales brochure for its own version in the Middle East.

The vehicle-mounted device imported from Russia is capable of jamming GPS signals from 50 to 100 km away. The North Korean-made jammer has similar capabilities but is cheaper. An intelligence report says the North recently imported a new 24-Watt jammer from Russia that is capable of interfering with GPS reception within a radius of 400 km, which means it can cover nearly all of the Korean Peninsula.

The devices are targeting mainly the U.S.' Tomahawk and South Korea's cruise missiles or their Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bombs. But most of the weapons are capable of avoiding signal interference since they use military codes.

The South Korean and U.S. militaries use missile and bomb guidance systems alongside inertial navigation systems. Their accuracy could suffer if only the INS is used. Once the GPS devices are jammed, it would be difficult to locate the precise position of enemy ships or aircraft and could result in missiles or bombs hitting the wrong targets.

A military source said, "We've suffered no significant damage from the North's GPS jamming operations, but missiles or bombs could of course be affected."

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

CASE STUDY: New Directions in Paging TWR Communications has stayed relevant by adapting its paging offerings to its customers’ changing needs. By Jeff Hutter MissionCritical Communications Magazine

TWR Communications began supplying mobile two-way radio service at the end of World War II. Since then, the dealer has expanded into complementary areas, including wide-area paging in 1989, to adapt to its customers changing needs and rapidly evolving technology. Some say paging is dead and that nobody needs a beeper with the constantly improving coverage of cellular networks, but that doesn't always hold true, especially in the rural, mountainous area in western Maryland that TWR serves, where cellular coverage is far from ubiquitous. In rural Maryland and other areas, pagers will continue to be a reliable communications tool for several reasons, including their low initial and ongoing cost, long battery life, replacement batteries as near as a 24-hour convenience store, and the capability to send one message to thousands of pagers in seconds.

TWR established a telephone answering service in early 1989 to help attract more customers. However, the radio common carrier (RCC) that provided paging in the region had only a few transmitters to cover the 21,000-square-mile region with no AC power backup and no spare equipment for outages. To address the demand, TWR obtained a private carrier license for multiple sites using VHF and 72 MHz control frequencies. All sites were then equipped with battery backup for at least eight hours, and spare transmitters were added to the shelf. Nearly all sites have backup propane generators.

The system was placed in service during late 1989 using a mixture of transmitters controlled by a terminal that provided only voice paging and a single phone line to call in. This setup didn’t last long because customers tired of the over-dialing required to place pages, as well as the busy signals that resulted from using only one line. The terminal was replaced with a digital-capable unit and direct in dial (DID) lines with separate numbers for each pager.

The entire system was replaced in the late 1990s. A new terminal with more DID lines, direct digital connections to the answering service system and voice mail was added, along with all new military-specification transmitters and control equipment. With this upgrade, TWR phased out all voice paging and went 100 percent digital. Because cellular service was slow to catch on in parts of Maryland — wireline carriers didn’t try to obtain wireless licenses in the initial lottery — TWR’s paging service, which now includes more than 14 transmitters in parts of four states, quickly added subscribers.

Senior Vice President Gary McKenzie took the paging service in a new direction in 2001. Traditional paging users originally centered around medical customers, service companies, contractors and government; however, the push toward alphanumeric service and the decreasing price of pagers enabled more information to be sent to a pager, attracting new public-safety users. Fire and rescue departments could be alerted by the local 9-1-1 center as well as by telephone and later through the Internet. Some of this interest was also the direct result of the high cost of voice pagers commonly used by fire agencies. A great spin-off for the fire and rescue market has been the ability to add private pager numbers to the same pager used for emergency traffic, negating the need to wear multiple devices.

Another Adaptation
While cellular carriers were regularly adding new subscribers, TWR lost more paging subscribers each month than it added. TWR became an Internet service provider (ISP) in 1999 and started to look at ways to make it easier to send alphanumeric pages without the need for cumbersome devices and dial-up modems. McKenzie spearheaded the effort to incorporate Internet paging through TWR’s website, as well as the ability to have e-mails automatically forwarded to pagers. This increased subscriber numbers, but also revealed that users wanted a more specialized method for sending pages and a record of pages sent. The company developed individual websites residing on TWR’s servers and connected directly to a paging terminal so each user could bookmark the site and click on it to send pages. Group pages were eventually set up for a local health/hospital center that had medical teams to cope with trauma and heart emergencies, as well as teams for routine maintenance and transportation issues.

“Keeping our paging customers happy is my primary mission every day when I come into work,” McKenzie says. “When we developed websites for our paging customers, we embellished them with their logos and individually customized them to match their operations.”

The company highlights the ability for paging to provide one message to hundreds if not thousands of pagers simultaneously within a matter of seconds. In 2009, a local paper mill decided to use its service to solve a number of situations. Paper mills routinely handle hazardous materials and need to have the ability to alert personnel if a leak occurs. A system of sirens and public address systems didn’t work well in the high-noise environment found in most manufacturing facilities, and the cost of maintenance was too high. The paper mill decided to eliminate its internal paging system because it provided no coverage outside of the plant and needed replacement. Because the mill staff already used TWR’s service, it was logical to have personnel carry only one pager with one number. Another advantage TWR had was the Internet connection to its paging terminal, which couldn't be accommodated with the client’s internal system. The first batch of pagers was placed in service in early 2010 and has quickly increased to more than 1,000 pagers, restoring TWR’s pager numbers back to where they were in 2006. But TWR — similar to other paging carriers — must continue to look for other opportunities to keep the service relevant.

Looking to the Future
For years, TWR has been involved in many allied wireless technology fields, including security surveillance, microwave links, dial-up and wireless Internet service, website hosting, tower/site rental, community repeaters and 800 MHz SMR service, operating a wide-area, Trident Micro Systems PassPort-based UHF 20-site network. The diversification has made TWR look toward new and unique applications for its own operations as well as to benefit its customers — for example, using pagers to remotely turn on and off equipment at its tower sites and to reboot equipment that has locked up.

Another area of interest for larger customers with multiple group paging is using large display tabletop pagers that can be programmed with multiple addresses, allowing management to see the pages when they are sent and to have access to the message content. This is a great way for management to know precisely when pages were sent, and in many cases, saves calls to the carrier trying to verify when pages were sent.

Both applications are on the list of new services that TWR will launch during 2011. 

Photo courtesy TWR Communications

Jeff Hutter (left) and Gary McKenzie showcase a large display tabletop pager they plan to market this year.

Jeff Hutter is president and CEO of TWR Communications and a 41-year veteran of the radio business. He served on the paging council with the National Association of Business and Educational Radio (NABER) in the 1990s, later serving on PCIA’s board representing the mobile two-way dealer membership. During the 1990s he also chaired the Mid-Atlantic Dealers Association that represented SMRs throughout Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia and parts of nearby states. He is also active in chamber of commerce affairs. E-mail comments to jeff.hutter@twrcommunications.com 

FCC Proposes To Reform Lifeline/Link-Up Program

At last Thursday’s open meeting, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to reform and modernize the Lifeline/Link-Up program. Building on recommendations of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, the Government Accountability Office, and the National Broadband Plan, the Commission’s proposals include:

• Strengthening protections against waste, fraud, and abuse, including through creation of a National Accountability Database to verify consumer eligibility;
• Taking immediate steps to create a uniform national framework for validating ongoing eligibility;
• Ensuring Lifeline only supports services consumers are actually using;
• Allowing discounts to be used for bundled voice-broadband service plans;
• Launching pilot programs to test strategies for supporting broadband service; and
• Evaluating a cap on the program, either temporary or permanent, in light of recent, rapid growth.

Lifeline provides discounts of approximately $10 per month on telephone service for low-income households, while Link Up provides discounts of up to $30 on connection charges. Discounts are available for one connection, either wired or wireless, per household.

The FCC proposes specific performance goals for the program, and metrics to measure its performance in advancing the universal service objectives established by Congress. The Commission then proposes immediate steps to address waste, fraud, and abuse and to bolster mechanisms to detect and deter rule violations. In particular, it proposes to strengthen its rules and improve the incentives of program participants to ensure that the program does not provide multiple, duplicative discounts to the same residential address. The FCC also proposes to eliminate reimbursement for certain services, including initiation fees that may be inflated or selectively applied only to low-income households. To reduce waste by ensuring that the program supports only communications services that consumers actually use, the FCC proposes to eliminate funding for services that go unused for more than sixty days.

The Commission seeks comment on expanding oversight, including through more extensive audits. It also seeks comment on a proposal to impose an annual funding cap on Lifeline/Link-Up, either temporarily—until implementation of the reforms proposed in the NPRM—or permanently.

This NPRM also addresses the unique situations facing residents on Tribal lands, who historically have had phone penetration substantially below the national average. The FCC proposes to clarify eligibility requirements for low-income Tribal households, and to permit Tribal enrollment based on participation in the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.

The NPRM also seeks comment on a number of proposals to streamline and improve overall program administration. The FCC asks whether the current system—in which responsibility for enrolling customers and ensuring their continued eligibility is split among carriers, state agencies, and third-party administrators—provides the right framework for prudent management of public resources and effective program administration. The FCC proposes to require all states to utilize the same baseline eligibility requirements that exist in the federal rules, which could streamline enrollment and facilitate verification of ongoing eligibility, and seeks comment on allowing states to use eligibility standards that supplement the minimum federal uniform standards. Consistent with the recommendation of the Joint Board, FCC proposes uniform national standards for the minimum verification of ongoing customer eligibility to stay enrolled in Lifeline and seeks comment on whether states should be permitted to impose additional verification requirements beyond that federal standard.

The FCC also seeks comment on a proposal to use an automated information management system to prevent duplicate claims for support, provide real-time electronic verification of consumer eligibility, and provide a means of ongoing verification of eligibility.

The FCC also asks how the program should be modernized in light of significant marketplace changes in the last fifteen years. It seeks to develop a record on what basic services the program should support, and it seeks comment on whether the current framework for determining reimbursement levels remains appropriate in an environment when many service offerings are not rate regulated.

The Commission also proposes reforms to put Lifeline/Link-Up on a more solid footing to achieve Congress’s goal of addressing the 21st century challenge of helping low-income households adopt broadband. The FCC said that although access to affordable voice service remains vital to consumers, supporting basic voice service alone may no longer be adequate to meet the basic communications needs of low-income Americans. The FCC said broadband is becoming an essential communications platform. It added that broadband can help working parents stay involved in their child’s education, enroll in and complete a distance-learning class to improve professional skills, and complete everyday tasks like paying bills and shopping for necessities. Broadband can help children in inner-city neighborhoods and remote rural towns access high-quality online educational content that might not otherwise be available to them. Broadband can help the unemployed search for jobs and apply for job postings, many of which are simply not available offline, the Commission said.

But many low-income Americans cannot afford a home broadband connection, the Commission noted. It said its 2010 Broadband Consumer Survey found that while 93 percent of households with incomes greater than $75,000 have broadband at home, only 40 percent of adults with household incomes less than $20,000 have broadband at home. “And consumers cited cost as a primary obstacle to adoption. This gap in broadband adoption is significantly greater than the gap in telephone penetration rates. While Lifeline and Link Up have significantly narrowed the telephone subscribership gap between low-income households and the national average, a new divide has emerged for broadband,” the FCC said.

“Consistent with our statutory obligation to ensure access to quality, affordable communications, we seek comment on proposals to ensure Lifeline and Link-Up meet the modern communications needs of low-income consumers. In particular, we propose that eligible households be permitted to use Lifeline discounts on bundled voice and broadband service offerings. We also seek comment on how best to design a broadband pilot program that will help inform the Commission’s inquiry into meeting the 21st century communications needs of low-income consumers,” the FCC said.

The initial comment date in this WC Docket No. 11-42, CC Docket 96-45, and WC Docket No. 03-109 proceeding is April 21. The reply date for Section IV (Immediate Reforms for Waste, Fraud and Abuse); Section V, Subsection A (Clarifying Consumer Eligibility Rules, One per residence); Section VII, Subsections B&D (Improving Program Administration, Certification of Consumer Eligibility for Lifeline, and Database) is May 10. The reply date for all other Sections is May 25.

BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak.

D Block Legislation Would Sell Off 450-470 MHz Band, Displacing Land Mobile and Paging Operations

On February 10, 2011, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, introduced H.R. 607, the “Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011,” which has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill is aimed at addressing the creation and maintenance of a nationwide Public Safety broadband network, including the reallocation of the 700 MHz “D Block” broadband spectrum to public safety. However, the fine print of the bill would reallocate a significant amount of UHF band spectrum, including the 450-470 MHz band where millions of land mobile and paging units currently operate, for use as broadband spectrum. If this legislation is adopted in its present form, these UHF bands would be sold at auction, thereby displacing tens of thousands of existing licensees. It is not clear whether the displaced licensees would be relocated to other spectrum, and whether they would be compensated for their relocation expenses.

By way of background, the D Block spectrum had been slated for use in a nationwide public safety/private sector network. After an attempt to auction the spectrum for that purpose failed, the National Broadband Plan recommended simply selling the D Block at public auction, without the stringent public safety partnership requirements. This spectrum was expected to generate several billion dollars in auction revenues. With the reallocation of this spectrum to public safety, the King bill seeks to find other spectrum to sell, and has focused on one of the most crowded bands of existing operations. The UHF auction would be designed to offset the loss of revenue that would occur as the result of the allocation of the D-Block. While similar D Block legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), so far it appears that only the King bill has targeted the UHF band as a replacement auction target.

In its initial version, H.R. 607 lists, among the bands to be reallocated for commercial auction within ten years of the passage of the Bill, the paired bands 420-440 MHz and 450-470 MHz. The 420-440 segment is shared by the Government and amateur radio. Within the 450-470 MHz segment are the frequencies allocated for shared operations by industries ranging from alarm monitoring, automobile emergency operations, railroads, public utilities, and in some instances public safety agencies. The FCC tried to adopt auction rules for this spectrum in 1999, but backed away from the proposal upon a finding that an auction of this heavily crowded band would not serve the public interest. The UHF band also includes those 454/450 MHz frequency pairs that have been allocated for paging/land mobile under Part 22 of the FCC’s rules.

H.R. 607 is presently cosponsored by the Homeland Security Committee’s Ranking Member, Representative Bennie Thompson (D-MS-2) as well as Representatives Shelley Berkley (D-NV-1), Yvette Clarke (D-NY-11), Billy Long (R-MO-7), Candice S. Miller (R-MI-10), Laura Richardson (D-CA-37), Mike Rogers (R-AL-3), and Michael Grimm (R-NY-13). This bill must make its way through the House and then the Senate, and may be modified by the other D Block bills that have been introduced. However, H.R. 607’s proposal to auction the 450-470 MHz band obviously could impact many licensees. We will provide additional details about the bills proposals and progress as they are learned.

BloostonLaw contacts: John Prendergast, Ben Dickens

FCC Adopts Several Native Nation Telecom Initiatives

The FCC held a Native Nations Day as part of last week’s open meeting that included public presentations from several Native Nation leaders, and nation-to-nation consultation sessions. In addition, the Commission adopted several proposals that could have a significant impact on the rights of existing wireline and wireless carriers, including concepts such as forced partitioning of spectrum. Affected clients should let us know promptly if they wish to participate in comments on this proceeding. The FCC adopted:

A Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on improving communications services for Native Nations that seeks comment on a number of issues, including greater broadband deployment, the need for a uniform definition of Tribal lands to be used agency-wide in rulemakings, and the importance of strengthening the FCC’s nation-to-nation consultation process with Native Nations.

The Native Nations NOI seeks comment on a wide range of issues intended to address the 68 percent telephone penetration rate and the less than 10 percent broadband penetration rate on Tribal lands nationwide. These rates lag far behind the country as a whole. The NOI also seeks information on Hawaiian Home Lands. The NOI explores:

• A Native Nations Priority for a wider array of communications services.
• A new Native Nations Broadband Fund — a National Broadband Plan recommendation — to support communications deployment-related priorities and needs in Native Nations.
• Sustainable Native Nations deployment models and whether there are specific characteristics and needs within Native Nations that would reveal potential best practices and/or successful techniques for broadband adoption and utilization, as detailed in the National Broadband Plan.
• An agency-wide, uniform definition of Tribal lands, inclusive of the many different types of lands of Native Nations and Hawaiian Home Lands.
• The Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) designation process on Tribal lands for obtaining universal service support and the related consultative process with Native Nations.
• Specific broadband-based opportunities to address the public safety and interoperability challenges on Tribal lands, such as the broad lack of 911 and E-911 services.
• How to increase efficiencies in the Commission’s processes and best practices for cultural preservation and the protection of Native sacred sites in communications tower reviews pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
• Obstacles and specific cost, equipment, and market entry issues related to satellite-based communications services for Native Nations.
• Needs and challenges faced by persons with disabilities on Tribal lands and ways in which to include Native persons with disabilities in all matters critical to providing access to broadband and other communications services on Tribal lands.
• Ways to create effective government-to-government consultation between the Commission and Native Nations, specifically examining the ongoing dialogue needed to contribute to the growth of the work between Native Nations and the Commission.

A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on ways to expand the efficient use of spectrum over Tribal lands so as to improve access to mobile wireless communications, which will provide consumers with more choices on how they communicate, share information and get their news. The Native Nations Wireless Spectrum NPRM seeks comment on:

• A proposal to expand the current broadcast Tribal Priority to create opportunities for access to wireless radio services licenses not yet assigned.
• A Native Nations-originated proposal to create a secondary market negotiation process under which Tribes could work with incumbent wireless licensees to bargain in good faith for access to spectrum over unserved or underserved Tribal lands.
• A Tribal proposal to employ an innovative process to utilize spectrum lying fallow under which either the licensee or the Native Nation could build out facilities to provide service.
• A proposal to provide incentives for licensees to deploy service to Tribal lands by enabling them to use that deployment to help satisfy the construction requirements for licenses.
• A proposal to improve the effectiveness of the Tribal lands bidding credit program, for example, by extending the current 3-year construction deadline and the current 180-day deadline to obtain necessary Native Nation government certification.

A Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration, and a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) to help expand opportunities for Tribal entities to provide broadcast radio services to Native communities.

The Commission adopted the Tribal and Rural Radio Orders and FNPRM to enhance opportunities for Tribal entities to provide broadcast radio service to Native communities, and modifies certain procedures for the allotment of broadcast radio channels in order to ensure a fair distribution of radio licenses to rural areas and smaller communities as well as urban areas. Last year, the Commission adopted a Tribal Priority that gave precedence to federally recognized American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages seeking to initiate needed radio service covering reservations and other Tribal lands. While there are over 565 Native Nations, many do not possess Tribal lands. Because the Tribal Priority currently requires coverage of Tribal lands, Native Nations without these lands cannot qualify for the priority. The order encourages those Native Nations to seek waivers of the Tribal lands coverage provisions of the Tribal Priority. Specifically, the Commission:

Adopted a policy for waiving certain requirements in the Tribal Priority in order to allow non-landed Tribes to take advantage of the Tribal Priority to provide radio broadcast services to Native communities.

• Adopted an alternative coverage standard to allow Tribes with small or irregularly shaped lands to take advantage of the Tribal Priority to provide radio broadcast service to their Native communities.
• Modified its procedures for determining which communities should receive priority in the award of new or relocated broadcast radio service. These modifications are designed to ensure a fair distribution of radio service to small, less well-served communities and rural areas as well as urbanized areas.
• Seeks comment on whether the Commission should require, as a threshold qualification to apply for a commercial FM channel allotted pursuant to the Tribal Priority, that an applicant qualify for the Tribal Priority for that channel, as well as seeking further comment on the Tribal Bidding Credit.

BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and John Prendergast.

FCC Seeks Comment On Revising Rules Under RFA

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the FCC has published a plan for the review of rules adopted by the agency in calendar year 1999 which have, or might have, a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These rules include universal service, wireless, customer proprietary network information (CPNI), local number portability (LNP), and other regulations that affect small businesses adopted a decade ago. The purpose of the review is to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the stated objective of section 610 of the RFA, to minimize any significant economic impact of such rules upon a substantial number of small entities.

The FCC plans to review these regulations during the next 12 months. In succeeding years, as here, the Commission will publish a list for the review of regulations adopted 10 years preceding the year of review. In reviewing each rule in a manner consistent with the requirements of section 610 the FCC will consider the following factors:

(a) The continued need for the rule;
(b) The nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public;
(c) The complexity of the rule;
(d) The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other federal rules and, to the extent feasible, with state and local governmental rules; and
(e) The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.

Areas that may be of interest to our clients include:

(a) Part 1 — Rules concerning content of wireless applications and frequency coordination with Canada; (b) Part 2 – Equipment Authorization Procedures involving procedures and conditions under which applications can be granted, dismissed, limited or revoked;
(c) Part 6 — Rules which concern access to telecommunications service, telecommunications equipment and CPE by persons with disabilities and enforcement provisions;
(d) Part 7 — which addresses access to voicemail and interactive menu services by persons with disabilities;
(e) Part 20 — which established the 218 – 219 MHz Service as a CMRS service;
(f) Part 22 — which amended the paging rules in connection with the paging auctions and the cellular rules in connection with the handling of 911 calls by analog cell phones;
(g) Part 42 involving preservation of records of communication common carriers in connection with interexchange services;
(h) Part 43 — which requires the disclosure of certain contracts and arrangements between US carriers and foreign carriers with the FCC and the requirement for confidential treatment;
(i) Part 54 — Universal Service for High Cost, Health Care and Administration of Universal Service;
(j) Part 61 — Tariffs — Definitions adopted to define terms used elsewhere in the FCC’s rules applicable to interstate, domestic and interexchange services and rules for dominant non-dominant carriers (domestic and international);
(k) Part 63 — Elimination of Section 214 requirement for extension of lines, in accordance with Section 402 of the Telecom Act of 1996 and provide rules for International 214 authorizations;
(l) Part 64 — Rules which require operator services providers to meet requirements of Communications Act when filing international tariffs, allocation of costs, eliminate unauthorized changes in subscriber’s telecommunications carriers (slamming/cramming), protect CPNI and provide for truth in billing;
(m) Part 68 — Requirement that certain telephone handsets be labeled with “HAC” to indicate consumers that the handset is hearing aid compatible;
(n) Part 69 — modifications to access charges and pricing flexibility;
(o) Part 80 — Rules involving co-channel interference for Public Coast VHF stations;
(p) Part 87 — technical requirements for aircraft stations an multicom stations;
(q) Part 90 — Rules involving the public safety pool and the industrial/business pool.

Some of the above rules may be candidates for deletion or change, either because they have become outdated (such as rules governing analog cellular) or because they have not been successful. If there is a particular rule that your company would like to see changes, please contact the firm, and advise us accordingly. Comments will be due 60 days after publication of the item in the Federal Register. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, John Prendergast and Richard Rubino.

FCC ADOPTS NPRM TO REVIEW RETRANSMISSION CONSENT RULES: The FCC has released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to consider possible amendments to rules concerning video programming retransmission consent negotiations. The NPRM proposes changes consistent with Congress’ statutory framework for market-based negotiations that are designed to minimize video programming service disruptions to consumers caused by disputes between television stations and pay television services about broadcast program carriage. The NPRM expresses the FCC’s view that it doesn't have the authority to require broadcast television stations to provide their signals to pay television providers or to require binding arbitration. The Communications Act requires cable systems and other pay television services to obtain a television station’s “retransmission consent” before carrying the station’s signal. The Act also requires broadcasters and pay television service providers to negotiate retransmission consent agreements in good faith. Since Congress enacted the retransmission consent regime in 1992, there have been significant changes in the video programming marketplace that have contributed to changes in negotiations for retransmission consent. In light of these changes, the FCC is reexamining its rules. Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on proposals that would:

• Provide more guidance to the negotiating parties on good-faith negotiation requirements;
• Improve notice to consumers in advance of possible service disruptions caused by impasses in retransmission consent negotiations; and
• Eliminate the Commission’s network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules, which provide a means for parties to enforce certain exclusive contractual rights to network or syndicated programming through the Commission rather than through the courts.
• The FCC is seeking public comment on any other revisions or additions to its rules that would improve the retransmission consent negotiation process and help protect consumers from service disruptions.

Comments in this MB Docket No. 10-71 proceeding will be due 60 days after publication of the item in the Federal Register, and replies will be due 30 days thereafter. BloostonLaw contact: Gerry Duffy.

FCC PROPOSES RULES IMPLEMENTING CVAA TO MAKE ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES: As part of its ongoing efforts to implement the “Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010” (CVAA), the FCC issued three Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs). The first of the three FCC CVAA-related NPRMs approved by the Commission seeks to ensure that the 54 million individuals with disabilities living in the United States are able to fully use advanced communications services, equipment and networks. Section 255 of the Communications Act now requires telecommunications and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) manufacturers to provide such access. The NPRM seeks to ensure that when Section 716 is implemented, it will fully complement Section 255. Until now, the FCC said, people with disabilities often have not had full access to the benefits of rapid technological changes in advanced communications. Wireless handsets have evolved into multi-media devices capable of accessing the Internet, sending e-mails or text messages, and enabling video conversations, the FCC said. The Advanced Communications Services NPRM seeks comment on the following:

• How should the FCC implement the requirements of Section 104 of the CVAA? It is essential that the Commission ensure that manufacturers of “advanced communications services” (ACS) equipment make their devices and products accessible to people with disabilities. In certain cases where manufacturers cannot achieve compliance by making their products or services accessible, they must ensure that their equipment and services is compatible with assistive technologies used by people with disabilities.
• Are there steps that the Commission should be taking to enhance its enforcement and record-keeping procedures for manufacturers and providers, under Sections 255 and 716? The CVAA directs the Commission to implement new procedures in this area under Section 717.
• With section 718 taking effect in 2013, what steps can the Commission and stakeholders take to ensure that ACS manufacturers and service providers are working to make mobile phone Internet browsers accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired?

(The CVAA NPRMs were originally scheduled for the FCC’s open meeting agenda last week, but were deleted and adopted on circulation.) Comments in this CG Docket No. 10-213, WT Docket No. 96-918, and CG 10-145 proceeding will be due 30 days after publication of the item in the Federal Register, and replies will be due 30 days thereafter. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, and Cary Mitchell.

FCC PROPOSES TO REINSTATE & MODIFY VIDEO DESCRIPTION RULES: The FCC last week approved a second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), related to the “Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010” (CVAA), that seeks comment on reinstatement and modification of the video description rules originally adopted by the Commission in 2000. Video description is the insertion of audio-narrated descriptions of a television program's key visual elements into natural pauses in the program's dialogue. This feature makes television programming more accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired by providing them with essential information that is otherwise conveyed to the audience only visually. This NPRM would reinstate the Commission’s video description rules that were previously overturned by a federal appeals court more than a decade ago. The FCC said the enactment of the CVAA provided the Commission with ample authority for the reinstatement of these rules. As directed by Congress in the CVAA, the proposed rules would require:

• Large-market broadcast affiliates of the top four national networks and large multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) to provide video description;
• These broadcasters to provide 50 hours per quarter of video-described primetime or children's programming, with affected MVPDs providing the same amount on each of the five most popular non-broadcast networks; and
• All network-affiliated broadcasters and all MVPDs to “pass through” any video description included in network or broadcast programming they carry. Live or near-live programming would be exempt from the proposed rules.

Comments in this MB Docket No. 11-43 proceeding will be due 30 days after publication of the item in the Federal Register, and replies will be due 30 days thereafter. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky and Gerry Duffy.

FCC PROPOSES TO EXTEND TRS FUND OBLIGATIONS TO INTERCONNECTED VOIP PROVIDERS: Also last week the FCC approved a third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to implement Section 103(b) of the “Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010” (CVAA), which mandates that the Commission extend participation in and contribution to the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund to interconnected and non-interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers. Although interconnected VoIP service providers already contribute to the Fund under Commission rules, this would statutorily codify that practice, and further extend this obligation to non-interconnected providers. The TRS Fund compensates TRS providers for the costs of providing service to individuals with hearing and speech disabilities. Contributions to the TRS Fund are calculated on the basis of annual interstate end-user telecommunications revenues. There is a “safe harbor” provision that permits interconnected VoIP providers to calculate their contributions on the basis of actual revenues or a traffic study, or to rely on a “safe harbor” provision that allows them to consider 64.9% of their revenues to be interstate telecommunications revenues. The TRS Fund NPRM seeks public comment on the following:

• Should the safe harbor provision extend to non-interconnected VoIP providers?
• What revenues should be included in calculating TRS contributions, i.e., just revenues from interstate end-user calls or revenues from all sources?
• Should the FCC require VoIP providers that offer services for free and have zero end-user revenues to make any contributions to the TRS Fund?

Comments in this CG Docket No. 11-47 proceeding will be due 30 days after publication of the item in the Federal Register, and replies will be due 30 days thereafter. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak.

FCC SEEKS COMMENT ON BANDS IDENTIFIED BY NTIA FOR BROADBAND: The FCC has asked for comment on the steps it can take to best promote wireless broadband deployment in the 1695-1710 MHz and 3550-3650 MHz bands recently identified by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for accommodating wireless broadband. The Commission also seeks input to inform ongoing assessment of several additional bands NTIA has identified for potential deployment of wireless broadband. These bands include the 1755-1850 MHz, 4200-4220 MHz and 4380-4400 MHz bands, and others identified by NTIA as candidates for commercial use. The FCC seeks specific comment on whether and to what extent these bands could be made available for broadband deployment. The Commission is particularly interested in comments on the following issues:

• How do the technical assumptions upon which NTIA based its analyses affect how broadband services could be deployed in each band?
• How do the conditions placed on the bands (e.g., exclusion zones) affect their usefulness for broadband deployment?
• What types of broadband technologies could be deployed in these bands and is equipment readily available? Does this equipment meet the technical assumptions in NTIA’s analyses? If not, how would the use of different technologies affect the availability of each band for broadband use?
• Will future broadband services require paired spectrum bands and, if so, what are the most suitable band pairings for the spectrum identified by NTIA? If the spectrum identified by NTIA is not paired, what broadband technologies might be deployed?
• Could broadband services share use of each band with Federal users and what techniques would be most effective for sharing (e.g., coordination in time, geography, or policy, and / or the use of cognitive technologies)? If sharing would not be feasible, what process should be used to relocate or phase out incumbent users (both Federal and non-Federal) and what are candidate relocation frequency bands?

Comments in this ET Docket No. 10-123 proceeding are due April 22. There is no reply date. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, and Cary Mitchell.

CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT BACKS SAN FRANCISCO IN TOWER DISPUTE: According to BNA, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently upheld a decision of the City and County of San Francisco denying T-Mobile's application for a conditional use permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility. The court ruled that the city's Board of Supervisors’ decision “in writing” satisfied the requirements of Section 332 of the Communications Act. As BNA reported, the Board conducted a hearing on T-Mobile’s application, decided unanimously against granting the application, and issued a five-page set of findings. In T-Mobile West Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco, BNA said, the District Judge noted that while it is not sufficient under the Communications Act for an authority to stamp the word "denied" on a party's application, the Act's "in writing" requirement does not require localities to "explicate the reasons for their decision and link their conclusions to specific evidence in the written record," as T-Mobile had argued. The Act requires only that the written decision contain sufficient explanation of the reasons for the decision to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record supporting those reasons, BNA said. As BNA noted, the Board had determined that T-Mobile’s proposed facility was not necessary because there was already "acceptable service" in the relevant area—a ground for denial specified in the county cod—and T-Mobile did not dispute the accuracy of the opponents' signal strength data or that it had several other facilities close by. Moreover, the record contained a letter from a T-Mobile customer, who did not have a problem with dropped calls and stated that indoor signal strength rated from average to exceptional, and T-Mobile's own data showed that, in a given two-week period, out of 470,903 calls originating within the neighborhood, only 1,198 were dropped, or one-fourth of one percent of the total. As a result, the court concluded that one could reasonably conclude that another facility was not necessary, and it upheld the Board’s decision.

This newsletter is not intended to provide legal advice. Those interested in more information should contact the firm.

AT&T, Verizon iPad 2 data plans compared

Posted on Mar 4, 2011 1:23 pm by David Chartier, Macworld.com

With the original iPad, you had a simple choice to make: to 3G or not to 3G. But with the addition of Verizon 3G data options alongside those from longtime Apple partner AT&T, you now have to not only decide if you want 3G connectivity in addition to Wi-Fi, but which carrier you want service from as well.

There are separate versions of the 3G-enabled iPad 2—one for AT&T’s network, and one for Verizon’s. You can’t just get a 3G-enabled iPad 2 to use across both carriers. In fact, if you include the new black and white color options, as well as the three storage sizes of 16GB, 32GB, and 64GB (the same sizes of the first-generation iPad), Apple sells a total of 12 different 3G-enabled iPad 2 models between both carriers.

You’ll also want to think about carrier coverage. The advantages, disadvantages, and intricacies of wireless coverage between the U.S.’s two largest carriers have been covered at length elsewhere, so I’m not going to duplicate them here. But if you haven’t ticked this item off your shopping research list yet, I recommend spending some time planning where you’re likely to use your iPad 2’s wireless connection, talking to friends who are currently using the provider you’re interested in, and checking both Verizon’s and AT&T’s published coverage maps.

Keep in mind that the plans on both Verizon and AT&T are offered on a no-contract, month-to-month basis. That means that you can sign up for a month, cancel the plan afterwards, and then sign up for a separate month at some point in the future. However, while AT&T now offers both prepaid and postpaid options for data plans, Verizon only allows you to pay for data upfront. Verizon's Executive Director of Corporate Communications, Brenda Raney, also confirmed to Macworld that, like AT&T, Verizon will not charge an activation fee to begin service, or even a reactivation fee if you cancel your service and start it up again a few months later.

Of course, for many of you, the iPad 2 decision will come down to which data plan and cost works best for you. In that case, let’s get to the chart:

Note: Neither AT&T nor Verizon charge activation fees for iPad data plans. You can start service one month, cancel it, and start again months later with no activation fees.

In terms of variety, Verizon has taken a shot at AT&T by offering more data plan options at a number of price points. Targeting data-hungry power users, Verizon’s monthly plans are available in 3GB, 5GB, and 10GB options, while AT&T’s plans top out at 2GB.

On the low end, AT&T does best Verizon by $5 per month for 250MB of data. For users who just want the cheapest wireless access while on-the-go, or those who are mainly interested in low-bandwidth tasks like checking e-mail infrequently or occasionally downloading a book or two, AT&T has the advantage there.

Ultimately, Verizon offers a more affordable data plan ladder to climb if you think your wireless usage could increase over time. If you plan to do more browsing, working, or app downloading on your commute or at the local Wi-Fi-less park, you’ll probably spend less money on Verizon as your wireless data usage grows.

Updated at 2:46 p.m. on Thursday March 10 with confirmation that Verizon will not be charging activation fees for iPad 3G plans.

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

PDT3000 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 Indoor/outdoor
• Integrated paging receiver

PDR3000/PSR3000 Paging Data Receivers

• Highly programmable, off-air decoders Message Logging & remote control Multiple I/O combinations and capabilities
• Network monitoring and alarm reporting

Specialized Paging Solutions

• Emergency Mass Alerting Remote telemetry switching & control Fire station automation PC interfacing and 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

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
Fax:	770-844-6574
WiPath Communications

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

Too Much To List • Call or E-Mail

Rick McMichael Preferred Wireless, Inc. 10658 St. Charles Rock Rd. St. Louis, MO 63074 888-429-4171 or 314-429-3000 rickm@preferredwireless.com CLICK HERE www.preferredwireless.com/equipment OR HERE

Wireless Communication Solutions

USB Paging Encoder

• Single channel up to eight zones
• Connects to Linux computer via USB
• Programmable timeouts and batch sizes
• Supports 2-tone, 5/6-tone, POCSAG 512/1200/2400, GOLAY
• Supports Tone Only, Voice, Numeric, and Alphanumeric
• PURC or direct connect
• Pictured version mounts in 5.25" drive bay
• Other mounting options available
• Available as a daughter board for our embedded Internet Paging Terminal (IPT)

Paging Data Receiver (PDR)

• Frequency agile - only one receiver to stock
• USB or RS-232 interface
• Two contact closures
• End-user programmable w/o requiring special hardware
• 16 capcodes
• POCSAG
• Eight contact closure version also available
• Product customization available

Other products

• Please see our web site for other products including Internet Messaging Gateways, Unified Messaging Servers, test equipment, and Paging Terminals.

Contact

Hark Technologies 717 Old Trolley Rd Ste 6 #163 Summerville, SC 29485

Tel: 843-821-6888

Fax: 843-821-6894

E-mail: sales@harktech.com CLICK HERE

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Zetron Unveils Breakthrough MAX Dispatch System at IWCE

Zetron is unveiling its breakthrough MAX Dispatch System at IWCE in Las Vegas, Nevada, March 9-11, 2011. MAX Dispatch is a pure, end-to-end IP-based console system that not only reflects Zetron’s 30+years of experience in console engineering, but also incorporates input from customers and resellers who previewed the system during its development. The unique features and functionality that result make the system easy to operate and maintain and improve dispatchers’ effectiveness and focus.

Redmond, WA, U.S.A., March 4, 2011 — Zetron, a leading provider of mission-critical communications worldwide, is unveiling its breakthrough MAX Dispatch system at the International Wireless Communications Expo (IWCE) that takes place in Las Vegas, Nevada, March 9-11, 2011.

MAX Dispatch is a pure, end-to-end IP-based telecommunications console system that not only reflects Zetron’s 30+years of experience in console design and engineering, but also incorporates input from customers and resellers who previewed the system during its development. As a result, MAX Dispatch offers best-of-industry features and functionality that make the system easy to operate and maintain. It also includes features expressly designed to reduce information overload and improve dispatchers’ efficiency, focus and response times.

MAX Dispatch system’s unique features and functionality include:

Intelligent User Interface — Selectively displays important information. Helps dispatchers quickly find and use resources that pertain to a particular event or task. Reduces screen clutter; minimizes buttons, clicks and steps; improves response times and reduces errors.

Built-in Network Health Monitor — Provides constant, real-time feedback about network conditions. Notifies users and technicians of network conditions that could degrade performance.

IT-EZ — Supports the automatic configuration of IP parameters within the local network. Reduces IT labor and helps prevent system conflicts.

Complete end-to-end network redundancy — Keeps the system up and running even if the primary network goes down.

The best features of both distributed and centralized architectures — The distributed design allows data and voice traffic to flow directly to the end points of the system, while the centralized intelligence directs traffic and monitors critical system functions.

“The dispatch console is the heart of a public safety communication system,” said Zetron president and CEO, Ellen O’Hara. “It’s what ties the people who need help to those who can provide it — from the caller to the dispatcher to the first responder. We’ve designed our new MAX Dispatch product with all of these people in mind.”

About Zetron
For over 30 years, Zetron has been providing mission-critical communications solutions for customers in public safety, transportation, utilities, manufacturing, healthcare, and business. With offices in Redmond, Washington, U.S.A.; Hampshire, England; Brisbane, Australia and numerous field locations, Zetron supports a worldwide network of authorized resellers and distributors. This gives Zetron a global reach as well as a local presence in the regions it serves. Zetron is a wholly owned subsidiary within JK Holdings, Inc. For more information, visit http://www.zetron.com.

Zetron, Inc. • P.O. Box 97004 • Redmond, WA 98073-9704
Phone: (425) 820-6363 • Fax: (425) 820-7031

“What is the manager's job? It is to direct the resources and the efforts of the business toward opportunities for economically significant results. This sounds trite — and it is. But every analysis of actual allocation of resources and efforts in business that I have ever seen or made showed clearly that the bulk of time, work, attention, and money first goes to problems rather than to opportunities, and, secondly, to areas where even extraordinarily successful performance will have minimal impact on results.”

—Peter F. Drucker