Welcome Back To
The Wireless Messaging News

How we can prevent 911 calls going unanswered

BY JEFF MCLEOD AND RONALD HEWITT, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS 06/13/17 11:00 AM EDT

© Getty Images

It has been a tough couple of months for 911 call centers. In at least seven states, callers in need of help in March were placed on hold or simply couldn’t reach a dispatch center. More alarming was a denial of service attack, launched by a teenager that nearly took out 911 call centers in at least a dozen states. Regardless of the cause, the result was the same — those in an emergency were unable to reach first responders.

Those incidents are indicative of challenges across the state emergency communications ecosystem, which — in addition to 911 call centers — includes land mobile radio (LMR) communications and broadband networks. In many ways, the emergency communications ecosystem is only as strong as its weakest link.

Demands on broadband networks will increase as states increasingly adopt next generation 911 or NG911, which will allow citizens to send messages via text, picture or video. Without sufficient broadband capacity for public safety, dispatch centers would be unable to transmit that critical data over a secure and reliable network to first responders.

Even with NG911 and a broadband network, the LMR systems that allow first responders to communicate are in need of upgrading, thereby affecting their ability to coordinate across jurisdictions and, ultimately, to assist callers in need.

Certainly, funding remains a challenge in many jurisdictions when it comes to building a highly functioning emergency communications ecosystem. However, often overlooked is the importance of strong governance for emergency communications. Strong governance, through established bodies, facilitates greater capability and interoperability among these technologies by coordinating planning and response, which are often fragmented across agencies and levels of government.

Last year, the National Governors Association’s Center for Best Practices and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Emergency Communications launched a project to assist a class of participants from five states with identifying challenges and solutions to improving governance of their state’s emergency communications ecosystem.

Governor-appointed teams from Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Utah and West Virginia participated in the Policy Academy on Enhancing Emergency Communications Interoperability.

The NGA Center and OEC recently published three key findings that can help other jurisdictions strengthen their ecosystem and the ability of first responders to save lives.

First, state officials responsible for overseeing a state’s LMR interoperability—statewide interoperability coordinators or SWICs—must be empowered to facilitate coordination among their broadband and 911 counterparts. A strong and empowered partnership among these individuals will further ensure that priorities are aligned to maximize expenditures.

LMR, broadband and 911 are the backbone to responding to everyday emergencies and for communicating across public safety entities. Without these tools, the millions of first responders across the nation would be unable to do their jobs.

It is our responsibility, and duty, to make the best tools available to the men and women who put their lives at risk every day to save others.

Second, states should prioritize sustaining an active governance body to coordinate and support all emergency communications. Since these tools are used by several agencies and localities, it is necessary to bring these stakeholders together to unify support around common goals and objectives.

Third, officials should revitalize the statewide communication interoperability plan, or SCIP, and inform executive decision makers. This plan is the strategy that guides states’ efforts to improving their emergency communications, but tends not to get the attention it deserves. State officials should emphasize the plan’s importance and garner support for its operation.

Lastly, and in line with the third lesson learned, lawmakers and legislatures must be engaged to promote support for the SCIP and identify long-term sustainability solutions.

Implementing these recommendations will require leadership. No one is better positioned to lead such efforts than the governor. With authority over state agencies and the ability to convene key stakeholders, they can set priorities, build consensus. and ensure state agencies are coordinated — when emergencies happen.

The time to act is now. Lives depend on it.

Jeff McLeod is the director of the Homeland Security and Public Safety Division at the National Governors Association’s Center for Best Practices. Ronald Hewitt (Rear Admiral,USCG ret.) is the director of the Office of Emergency Communications in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Source: The Hill.

Now on to more news and views.

Wayne County, Illinois

Emergency Radio Communications Wireless Messaging Critical Messaging Two-way Radio Technology Telemetry Science Paging Wi-Fi

Wireless Messaging

This doesn't mean that nothing is ever published here that mentions a US political party—it just means that the editorial policy of this newsletter is to remain neutral on all political issues. We don't take sides.

A new issue of the Wireless Messaging Newsletter is posted on the web each week. A notification goes out by e-mail to subscribers on most Fridays around noon central US time. The notification message has a link to the actual newsletter on the web. That way it doesn’t fill up your incoming e-mail account.

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.

I spend the whole week searching the Internet for news that I think may be of interest to you — so you won’t have to. This newsletter is an aggregator — a service that aggregates news from other news sources. You can help our community by sharing any interesting news that you find.

Editorial Opinion pieces present only the opinions of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of any of advertisers or supporters. This newsletter is independent of any trade association. I don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings, but I do freely express my opinions.

Subscribe

IT'S FREE

* required field

If you would like to subscribe to the newsletter just fill in the blanks in the form above, and then click on the “Subscribe” button.

There is no charge for subscription and there are no membership restrictions. It’s all about staying up-to-date with business trends and technology.

The Wireless Messaging News
Board of Advisors

The Board of Advisor members are people with whom I have developed a special rapport, and have met personally. They are not obligated to support the newsletter in any way, except with advice, and maybe an occasional letter to the editor.

Can You Help The Newsletter?

You can help support The Wireless Messaging News by clicking on the PayPal Donate button above. It is not necessary to be a member of PayPal to use this service.

Newspapers generally cost 75¢ $1.50 a copy and they hardly ever mention paging or wireless messaging, unless in a negative way. If you receive some benefit from this publication maybe you would like to help support it financially?

A donation of $50.00 would certainly help cover a one-year period. If you are wiling and able, please click on the PayPal Donate button above.

Back To Paging

Still The Most Reliable Protocol For Wireless Messaging!

If you are reading this, your potential customers are reading it as well. Please click here to find out about our advertising options.

Advertiser Index

Enhancing Mobile Alert Response

sales@wirelessmessaging.com
800-373-1466
2630 National Dr., Garland, TX 75041

Contact Us for OEM Requests

BluTrac (Bluetooth Tracking and Control)

• Monitor and Report Bluetooth Beacon Signals via Wi-Fi
• Autonomous or Networked Applications
• Audible/Visual Annunciation and Output Switching
• Applications include:
  • Mobile Asset Tracking
  • Mobile Resident Call and Wandering Resident Tracking (MARS Only)
  • Access Control
  • Remote Switching Control
• Learn More at  blutrac.net

MARS (Mobile Alert Response System)

• Paging Protocol Monitoring and Wireless Sensor Monitoring (Inovonics and Bluetooth LE)
• Improves Mobile Response Team Productivity using Smartphone App
• Low-Latency Alerts using Pagers, Smartphones, Browsers, and Digital Displays
• Automated E-mail Based Alert Response and System Status Reports
• Linux Based Embedded System with Ethernet and USB Ports
• Browser Based Configuration
• Mobile Resident Call and Wandering Resident Tracking with Bluetooth Beacons
• SMTP and SIP Inputs and XMPP Output in Development

STG (SIP to TAP Gateway)

• Monitors Rauland Nurse Call SIP Protocol
• Outputs TAP protocol to Ethernet and Serial Port Paging Systems
• Linux Based Embedded System
  
• Browser Based Configuration

Easy Solutions provides cost effective computer and wireless solutions at affordable prices. We can help in most any situation with your communications systems. We have many years of experience and a vast network of resources to support the industry, your system and an ever changing completive landscape.

• We treat our customers like family. We don’t just fix problems . . . We recommend and implement better cost-effective solutions.
• We are not just another vendor . . . We are a part of your team. All the advantages of high priced full time employment without the cost.
• We are not in the Technical Services business . . . We are in the Customer Satisfaction business.

Experts in Paging Infrastructure

• Glenayre, Motorola, Unipage, etc.
• Excellent Service Contracts
• Full Service—Beyond Factory Support
• Contracts for Glenayre and other Systems starting at $100
• Making systems More Reliable and MORE PROFITABLE for over 30 years.

Please see our web site for exciting solutions designed specifically for the Wireless Industry. We also maintain a diagnostic lab and provide important repair and replacement parts services for Motorola and Glenayre equipment. Call or e-mail us for more information.

SkyTel Luminaries

John Palmer	Jai Bhagat	Bill Hayes

Kansas City

Premium Newsletter Supporter

Premium Newsletter Supporter

Canyon Ridge Communications

Premium Newsletter Supporter

ProPage Inc.

Newsletter Supporter

Metropolitan Communications

Newsletter Supporter

e*Message Wireless Information Services Europe

Newsletter Supporter

Lekkerkerk, Netherlands

Newsletter Supporter

Incyte Capital Holdings LLC
Dallas, Texas

Premium Newsletter Supporter

Le Réseau Mobilité Plus
Montreal, Quebec

Newsletter Supporter

Communication Specialists

Newsletter Supporter

Cook Paging

Premium Newsletter Supporter

MethodLink

Premium Newsletter Supporter

Citipage Ltd.
Edmonton, Alberta

Newsletter Supporter

Repair and Refurbishment Services

Product Support Services, Inc.

511 South Royal Lane
Coppell, Texas 75019
(972) 462-3970 Ext. 261
sales@pssirl.com
www.pssirl.com

PSSI is the industry leader in reverse logistics, our services include depot repair, product returns management, RMA and RTV management, product audit, test, refurbishment, re-kitting and value recovery.

CEO Notruf NÖ Austria Compares TETRA & POCSAG Alerting

Notruf NÖ operates one of Austria’s biggest integrated rescue services, serving Lower Austria, the large region surrounding Austria’s capital Vienna. NÖ’s rescue forces, with more than 96,000 voluntary firemen and 16,000 voluntary paramedics, respond to more than 1.1 million emergency events per year. For these volunteers it is crucial to be alerted, quickly, accurately and reliably.

Christof Constantin Chwojka

“Volunteers need to be alerted wherever they are in their daily routines; they need to be alerted in their basements, in their houses — sometimes in their old houses with big walls. Our alerting solution therefore has to provide full indoor coverage and work anywhere, anytime,” says Christof Constantin Chwojka, CEO Notruf NÖ.

Throughout the last decade, Notruf NÖ has gathered extended experience with different public safety communication and alerting systems. The organisation benefits from a TETRA network with 400 base stations in Lower Austria and is operating a POCSAG network with 130 paging base stations covering the entire region.

At this week’s Critical Communications World 2017 Hong Kong, Christof Chwojka, gave a presentation on “A Comparison of Public Safety Alerting & Communications Technologies,” comparing TETRA’s and POCSAG’s suitability from an alerting perspective. Here are some of his key findings he shared with the audience:

• POCSAG paging provides better area coverage (a factor of 4-10)
• POCSAG (low VHF frequencies) allows more effective building penetration
• POCSAG sites are much cheaper than TETRA infrastructure (a factor of 50-60)
• POCSAG allows country-wide group-alarms at the same time with only one alarm
• POCSAG devices are cheaper than TETRA devices (a factor of 2-3)
• POCSAG devices provide more comfort (smaller, more robust and lighter)
• POCSAG devices provide much longer battery life (a factor of 20-90)

Christof Chwojka concludes that alerting via POCSAG paging is the most suitable solution for alerting a large number of intervention forces, not only from a reliability and cost perspective, but also from the perspective of the enduser’s comfort: “Volunteers don't want to sleep every night close to the charging station,” says Christof Chwojka.

The fact that this requires a POCSAG network next to the TETRA network does not create additional costs compared to an alerting solution with TETRA. In fact, the contrary is true, due to the difference in price of the end-user devices. Given a total of 112,000 volunteers, this amounts to more than 22 Million Euros. With the POCSAG network amounting to less than 2 Million Euros, this results in potential savings of more than 20 Million Euros. “On top of that, our TETRA network is not ready for this large number of alerts, and it covers only the exterior rooms of a house in instead of the full building. To achieve the same TETRA coverage we have today with our POCSAG network by adding TETRA base stations to our TETRA network would create huge additional costs we prefer to avoid,” adds Christof Chwojka.

Another advantage Christof Chwojka sees in two separate networks is the overall system redundancy: “If our TETRA network is not working, we can transmit additional information through our POCSAG network, and if the POCSAG network may not be working, we can alert via TETRA, so both systems are serving as backup to each other.”

After revisiting their alerting concept for the coming years, Notruf NÖ has therefore decided to maintain and further invest in its POCSAG infrastructure. “Today our POCSAG system is not yet fully self-reliant. We want to take the next step with our partner Swissphone making our network completely independent of any third-party infrastructure. We therefore plan to implement Swissphone’s newest network technology with additional fallback modes such as allowing base stations to communicate over the air if necessary,” says Christof Chwojka.

“We want to be ready for any potential future events such as terrorist attacks on infrastructure. Whatever happens to a base station, whatever happens to a transmission in the network, whatever happens in the command center, to the network controller, to whatever, must not be a problem in the future, that is our goal and that is what we want to reach,” concludes Christof Chwojka.

Specialists in sales and service of equipment from these leading manufacturers, as well as other two-way radio and paging products:

	Motorola SOLUTIONS
	Motorola MOBILITY

Draft 1.8- 06.11.2017

Mission Critical Communications Article
Is Your Smartphone Secure?

By Rex M. Lee
RML Business Consulting, LLC

“Do Smartphones Violate Federal & Industry Cyber Security Standards, NDAs, & Confidentiality Laws?”

The answer is yes according to T-Mobile’s admission (see enclosed quote) that third-parties collect and use surveillance data and sensitive user data collected from telecommunication subscribers via app driven connected devices such as smartphones.

The T-Mobile admission was a result of an FCC privacy complaint I filed with the FCC against T-Mobile in July of 2015. I conducted a Samsung Galaxy Note terms of use and installed (“pre-installed/install-by-update”) application analysis to back my privacy complaint with hard data.

Due to T-Mobile’s admission coupled with my research, I can tell you that app driven connected technology such as smartphones do not meet federal and industry cyber security standards or critical infrastructure service level agreement criteria.

I can state that anyone who uses app driven connected technology for official business is inadvertently violating any nondisclosure and confidentiality agreement that that they may have with their employer.

Furthermore, any legal professional, healthcare provider, and government employee who uses app driven connected technology for official business is inadvertently violating confidentiality laws that govern official business pertaining to legal matters, medical purposes, and/or the handling of classified information.

Do not take my word for it, T-Mobile confirms it:

• In July of 2015, I filed a formal consumer complaint (ticket#423849/public record) with the FCC against T-Mobile due to personal and professional privacy concerns and cyber security threats I had identified after conducting the Samsung Galaxy Note (android OS) terms of use and installed (“pre-installed/install-by-update”) application analysis.
• In November of 2015, my formal FCC complaint produced an astonishing admission from T-Mobile that app driven connected smartphones are not private forms of telecommunications or mobile computing:
  • “We, too, remember a time before smartphones when it was reasonable to conclude that when you activated service with T-Mobile that only T-Mobile would have access to our personal information.  However, with the Samsung Galaxy Note, the iPhone, and many other devices, there are indeed a variety of parties that may collect and use information.”
    — T-Mobile Privacy Team (November 6th, 2015/FCC Consumer Complaint #423849 Filed By Rex M. Lee/Public Record). 

If you read the quote carefully, T-Mobile implies that due to the invention of the smartphone, privacy and cyber security should not be expected by the user.

My research shows that important legalese that supports the lawful acquisition of connected product user data is hidden from the product owner and/or authorized device user (employees, spouse, children, etc.).

The legalese includes installed application permission statements and app product warnings that are not transparent to the app driven connected product user. Below is an example of a real android application permission statement:

Figure 1 — Hidden android Application Permission Statement and Product Warning (Galaxy Note screen shot). The permission below is attached to apps such as the Google Services Frameworks app:

Due to hidden app permissions, after spending months doing the analysis, I can only conclude that companies such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft are not being transparent with the T-Mobile telecommunication subscriber when it comes to the connected product business model.

For example, what was very troubling was the fact that my T-Mobile agreement implied that my identification would remain anonymous to third-parties since they use the term “de-identified” when referencing the telecommunication product user within the T-Mobile privacy policy. This may be true for T-Mobile, but android app permissions tell another story.

Android (Google) app permissions contradict the T-Mobile statement that the user remains anonymous. The personal profile app permission statement is clear when it comes to the identity of the product user. The app permission clearly states that the user can be identified by the apps that contain the personal profile app permission. See the example below:

Figure 2 — Personal Profile android App Permission Statement

My research shows that these companies are actually using surveillance and sensitive user data for predictive technology and artificial intelligence (“AI”) so the user can have a better product experience or at least that is what companies such as Google state.
However, T-Mobile states that third-parties are collecting and using surveillance and sensitive user data. The question is, how are third-parties using, sharing, selling, purchasing, and aggregating the surveillance and sensitive user data?

Since I do consulting work for a defense contractor and work within critical infrastructure (utility, public safety, oil & gas), it would have been nice for T-Mobile to have explained to me that smartphones are not private prior to me making a product purchase. It would be nice if TV ads promoting app driven telecom products also explained that smartphones are not private then I would not have bought the intrusive and exploitive product in the first place.

I believe people who use smartphones for confidential communications and computing really do not understand how smartphones work nor do they understand the connected product business model.

After all I did not understand how smartphones really worked nor did I understand the app driven connected product business model until I conducted the Samsung Galaxy Note terms of use and installed app analysis.

Samsung Galaxy Note Smartphone Terms of Use and Installed App Analysis

While doing consulting work for Space Data Corporation (U.S. defense contractor), I had concerns that third-parties were using the installed apps that supported the Galaxy Note to conduct surveillance on me while collecting surveillance data and sensitive user data.

In November of 2014, I conducted a Samsung Galaxy Note terms of use and installed (“pre-installed/install-by-update”) app analysis to back my privacy concerns with hard data.

The terms of use included product terms and conditions (“T&Cs”), privacy policies, end user licensing agreements (“EULAs”), application permission statements, and application product warnings.

Note that the app permissions and app product warnings were not published in the product terms of use but were hidden in the OS of the device.

I identified over 15 multinational entities that were responsible for the development of the Installed apps & content. Many of the apps developed by the multinational entities were governed by app permissions enabling the entities to lawfully conduct surveillance on the product user while the entities data mined connected product user data from the user’s smartphone.

Over 275 installed apps supported the Galaxy Note. Each app is supported by an end user licensing agreement (“EULA”) that consisted of 1 to 12 or more pages of legalese. It took me nearly 4 months to research the apps, EULAs, and the terms of use from each company that supported the device. In other words, it took me nearly 4 months to read my cellular phone contract.

The Terms of Use do not fully explain how all third-parties use, share, sell, purchase, and aggregate surveillance data and sensitive user data.

The apps were even more difficult than the terms of use to analyze since there were over 275 installed apps that supported the Galaxy Note.

I classified the android OS as “predatory” since it is designed to give full control to Google while not allowing the product owner the ability to uninstall any of the installed apps or content. I found that most of the intrusive apps could not be controlled nor disabled.

I broke the installed apps out into subsets plus identified intrusive apps as predatory and surveillance apps. Predatory apps are designed to enable third-parties to collect sensitive user data (detailed content). Surveillance apps are programmed to enable third-parties the ability to monitor and track the connected product user while collecting the surveillance data produced by the product user.

Apps that included predatory and surveillance capabilities included every day usage apps such as the contact app, Samsung keyboard app, email app, gallery (photo) app, messaging (text) app, music app, phone (make calls) app, video app, plus other apps that support basic functionality.

After I conducted the Galaxy Note analysis I had identified numerous privacy concerns, cyber security threats, and potential deceptive trade violations I had escalated to T-Mobile, Samsung, and the FCC.

To date there are many unanswered questions which T-Mobile, Google, Samsung, the FCC and FTC should address such as:

• “Why are application permission statements and application product warnings not published in the product terms of use?”
• “Why is the app legalese called a permission if the user cannot deny the permission?”
• “How can a product user heed an application product warning if the warning is not transparent to the product user?”
• “Are AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile telecom subscribers paying for products and services that can bring harm to the product user which includes children under the age of 18?”
• “How come telecom providers such as AT&T are enabling third-parties that compete in many industries worldwide to gain access to protected telecom related information collected from telecom devices supported by protected (due process/4th amendment) telecom infrastructure governed by the FCC?”
• “Do our telecom providers realize that many of the third-parties that are collecting protected telecom related information from telecom subscribers compete in many industries worldwide?”
  • My point here is that companies such as Google, Apple, Microsoft, BAIDU, & Facebook compete in many industries worldwide yet they are enabled by the FTC, FCC, and telecom providers such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint to collect and use telecom related surveillance data and sensitive user data via app driven cellular telephones used by U.S. citizens, business professionals, govt. officials, elected officials, and public servants.
  • Business professionals that work in industries where companies such as Google have a business presence may be unknowingly sharing business related surveillance data plus sensitive user data with potential business competitors whom are supporting the user’s app driven cellular phone with predatory and surveillance technology.
  • How come I’m the only person who sees this obvious conflict of interest that the FCC, FTC, CTIA, AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint need to address?
• “Do our telecom providers realize that some of the entities collecting telecom related information from U.S. citizens via their app driven telephones (wireline/wireless) are from countries such as China?”
• “Why are multinational corporations that compete in many industries worldwide enabled to collect connected product user data from app driven telephones (wireline/wireless) and PCs supported by protected telecom infrastructure governed by the FCC?”
• “Is information being sold or shared with entities that can bring harm to the app driven connected product user?”
• “Is information being sold to data brokers, bank underwriters, insurance companies, employers, institutions of higher learning, law enforcement, state actors (foreign, domestic, friendly, hostile), and business competitors?”
• “Can a state actor circumvent a user’s due process by simply purchasing protected telecom related information from a source such as a data broker or Google?”

Paying telecommunication subscribers have a right to know the answers to these all important questions due to privacy concerns and cyber security threats posed by app driven connected technology.

The amount of surveillance data and sensitive user data being collected from app driven smartphones is staggering.

For example:

• Predatory apps enable third-parties to collect and use personal ID (personal contact info), contact data (address book), calendar data, text messages, email attachments, photos, videos, key-logging data, touch screen activity, and other highly sensitive information.

Figure 3 — Predatory app permissions (screen shots of actual android app permissions- Galaxy Note):

• Some predatory apps are programmed to sync to other connected products and services owned by the device user. This allows third-parties to data mine connected product user data from multiple sources without the user’s consent or knowledge.

Figure 4 — Syncing android App Permissions

• Surveillance apps enable third-parties to use hardware such as the camera and microphone to take pictures plus record audio and video without user consent or knowledge.

Figure 5 — Surveillance Hardware android App Permissions

• Surveillance apps also enable third-parties to collect and use motion data (physical activity), health and fitness data, location data, geofence data, and even auto telematics such as your car’s speed.

Figure 6 — Surveillance App Permissions

• Some predatory apps can bypass locks and passcodes. Other predatory apps keep the device from sleeping so the data mining is taking place 24X7/365 as long as there is power to the device.

Figure 7 — Control android App Permissions

• Some predatory apps are programmed to overwrite other apps. In addition, some predatory and surveillance apps are programmed to run immediately when the device is powered on without giving the device user the ability to opt out of any exploitive data mining business practices even though the user may be the paying customer.
• Some predatory apps are programmed to make sure that the product owner and/or device user never has full control over the product and installed apps & content ensuring that third-parties remain in full control of the products and services.

Figure 8 — BAIDU Interactive Application Permission Command String (National Security Risk)

• Some predatory app permissions are nebulous such as the BAIDU app permissions that implies Google is enabling BAIDU to access location services via the Email 4.2 application.
• I highlighted this nebulous app permission as a national security threat and escalated the finding to all parties concerned which included the FCC and the DHS.
  • To date T-Mobile, Google, Samsung, the FCC and the DHS has not responded to this finding.
• This finding implies that Google is enabling entities from countries such as China to monitor, track, and data mine U.S. citizens via app driven telecommunication devices such as Smartphones.

In all there were over 100 predatory and surveillance app permissions that supported each of the over 275 installed apps that were pre-loaded into the Galaxy Note smartphone. Many of the app permissions contained app product warnings.

Per my research coupled with the T-Mobile admission, it is obvious that app-driven-connected products should not be used in an environment that requires confidentiality governed by cyber security standards, NDAs, SLAs, and confidentiality laws.

In closing, an electronic bill of rights is needed to protect the privacy and data of businesses and consumers who use app driven connected technology.

Figure 9 — Electronic Bill of Rights

For more information on my privacy complaint, Department of Homeland Security Report, and T-Mobile admission visit my website: www.TermsMayApply.com or feel free to contact me at: RLee@RMLBusinessConsulting.com This document includes data that shall not be disclosed by the requesting party, and shall not be duplicated, used, or otherwise disclosed—in whole or in part—for any purpose other than to evaluate this analysis unless otherwise approved by Rex M. Lee. The contents of this document shall be protected as Rex M. Lee Proprietary unless otherwise approved for release by Rex M. Lee.

Disaster-Proven Paging for Public Safety

Paging system designs in the United States typically use a voice radio-style infrastructure. These systems are primarily designed for outdoor mobile coverage with modest indoor coverage. Before Narrowbanding, coverage wasn’t good, but what they have now is not acceptable! The high power, high tower approach also makes the system vulnerable. If one base station fails, a large area loses their paging service immediately!

Almost every technology went from analog to digital except fire paging. So it’s time to think about digital paging! The Disaster-Proven Paging Solution (DiCal) from Swissphone offers improved coverage, higher reliability and flexibility beyond anything that traditional analog or digital paging systems can provide. 

Swissphone is the No. 1 supplier for digital paging solutions worldwide. The Swiss company has built paging networks for public safety organizations all over the world. Swissphone has more than 1 million pagers in the field running for years and years due to their renowned high quality.

DiCal is the digital paging system developed and manufactured by Swissphone. It is designed to meet the specific needs of public safety organizations. Fire and EMS rely on these types of networks to improve incident response time. DiCal systems are designed and engineered to provide maximum indoor paging coverage across an entire county. In a disaster situation, when one or several connections in a simulcast solution are disrupted or interrupted, the radio network automatically switches to fall back operating mode. Full functionality is preserved at all times. This new system is the next level of what we know as “Simulcast Paging” here in the U.S.

Swissphone offers high-quality pagers, very robust and waterproof. Swissphone offers the best sensitivity in the industry, and battery autonomy of up to three months. First responder may choose between a smart s.QUAD pager, which is able to connect with a smartphone and the Hurricane DUO pager, the only digital pager who offers text-to-voice functionality.

Bluetooth technology makes it possible to connect the s.QUAD with a compatible smartphone, and ultimately with various s.ONE software solutions from Swissphone. Thanks to Bluetooth pairing, the s.QUAD combines the reliability of an independent paging system with the benefits of commercial cellular network. Dispatched team members can respond back to the call, directly from the pager. The alert message is sent to the pager via paging and cellular at the same time. This hybrid solution makes the alert faster and more secure. Paging ensures alerting even if the commercial network fails or is overloaded.

Swissphone sets new standards in paging:

Paging Network

• It’s much faster to send individual and stacked pages digitally than with analog voice.
• If you want better indoor coverage, you put sites closer together at lower heights.
• A self-healing system that also remains reliable in various disaster situations.
• Place base station where you need them, without the usage of an expensive backhaul network.
• Protect victim confidentiality and prevent unauthorized use of public safety communications, with integrated encryption service.

Pager

• Reliable message reception, thanks to the best sensitivity in the industry.
• Ruggedized and waterproof, IP67 and 6 1/2-feet drop test-certified products.
• Battery autonomy of up to three months, with a standard AA battery.
• Bluetooth enables the new s.QUAD pager to respond back to the dispatch center or fire chief.

Dispatching:

• Two-way CAD interfaces will make dispatching much easier.
• The new s.ONE solution enables the dispatcher or fire chiefs to view the availability of relief forces.
• A graphical screen shows how many of the dispatched team members have responded to the call.

Swissphone provides a proven solution at an affordable cost. Do you want to learn more?
Visit: www.swissphone.com or call 800-596-1914.

GOOGLE DRIVE

Google Drive Will Soon Be Able to Back Up Your Whole Computer

Madeline Farber
8:54 AM ET

Starting soon, you'll be able to rely on Google Drive to back up your computer. On Wednesday, Google (GOOGL, -1.90%) revealed in a blog post that it's releasing a new feature on June 28 called "Backup and Sync." The update, which is intended for consumer users, will allow users to access "huge corporate data sets without taking up the equivalent space on their hard drives," reads the blog. In other words, as USA Today notes, this means that users can have Google Drive back up an entire Desktop folder instead of putting individual files into the Google Drive folder.

What's more, Google will continue to backup the folder so everything stays up-to-date.

According to the Verge, in some cases Backup and Sync will replace the standard Google Drive app and the Google Photos Backup app. The Verge also notes that it's likely the files will count toward the Google Drive storage limit.

Monday, June 12, 2017	Volume 5 | Issue 114

Report Shows U.S. Lags Behind in Mobile Internet Speeds

Akamai Technologies, using its Akamai Intelligent Platform, analyzed and recently released its first quarter 2017 State of the Internet Report, which measures important metrics, like connection speeds, broadband adoption metrics and notable internet disruptions.

“Increases in connection speeds and broadband penetration have helped enable the internet to support levels of traffic that even just a few years ago would have been unimaginable,” David Belson, the editor of the report, said in a company press release. “One need only look to January’s U.S. Presidential Inauguration, which broke traffic records for live coverage of a single news event delivered by Akamai.”

Globally, the average internet connection speed was 7.2 Mbps, which marks a 15 percent year-over-year increase in speed. Global average peak connection speed increased by an impressive 28 percent, measuring in at 44.6 Mbps in the first quarter of this year.

The report also cited key mobile statistics, as well, with the United Kingdom topping the list as the country with the highest average mobile connection speeds—26 Mbps. Perhaps surprisingly, the United States ranked just 28th on that list, with its average connection speed measuring at 10 Mbps. To access the full report, click 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

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

A Problem

The Motorola Nucleus II Paging Base Station is a great paging transmitter. The Nucleus I, however, had some problems.

One of the best features of this product was its modular construction. Most of the Nucleus' component parts were in plug-in modules that were field replaceable making maintenance much easier.

One issue was (and still is) that two of the modules had to always be kept together. They are called the “matched pair.”

Motorola used some tricks to keep people in the field from trying to match unmatched pairs, and force them to send SCM and Exciter modules back to the factory for calibrating them with precision laboratory equipment.

The serial numbers have to match in the Nucleus programing software or you can't transmit [in simulcast mode] . Specifically the 4-level alignment ID parameter contained in the SCM has to match the Exciter ID parameter.

Even if someone could modify the programing software to “fudge” these parameters, that would not let them use unmatched modules effectively without recalibrating them to exact factory specifications.

So now that there is no longer a Motorola factory laboratory to send them to, what do we do?

I hope someone can help us resolve this serious problem for users of the Nucleus paging transmitter.

Please let me know if you can help. [click here]

[Thanks to Tom Harger Chief Engineer at Contact Wireless for the correction above in red.]

Selected portions [sometimes more — sometimes less] of the BloostonLaw Telecom Update and/or the BloostonLaw Private Users Update — newsletters from the Law Offices of Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Prendergast, LLP — are reproduced in this section of The Wireless Messaging News with the firm’s permission. Contact information is included at the end of the newsletter.

REMINDER: FCC Form 481 Due July 3, New Location Reporting Requirements

Eligible Telecommunications Carriers are reminded that this year’s annual Form 481 filing is due July 3. For 2017, ETCs do not have to file Section 100 Five-Year Plan Progress Reports. Additionally, CAF Phase II participants will report location data and make the associated certifications in the HUBB portal rather than on Form 481. This is also the first time Rate of Return carriers will be filing location data. Specifically, CAF BLS recipients must report location data through the HUBB portal, but only those locations added since May 25, 2016. ACAM recipients will report for the first time next year.

BloostonLaw is experienced in preparing and filing Form 481, as well as meeting the FCC’s requirements to obtain confidentiality for the filings. Carriers interested in obtaining assistance should contact the firm.

BloostonLaw Contacts: Gerry Duffy and Sal Taillefer.

Headlines

FCC Filing Window for Grandfathered 3.65-3.7 GHz Protection Zones Closes August 7

The FCC has established a filing window for incumbent licensees in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band to file supplemental information to define their Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone within the framework for deployment of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS). This filing is necessary for incumbent 3.65-3.7 GHz licensees to enjoy interference protection from new CBRS operations. The deadline for filing any application in the FCC’s Universal Licensing System (ULS) to be afforded protection is August 7, 2017. Clients with 3.65 GHz licenses should contact us promptly if they would like help protecting their existing operations.

Background

As we previously reported, in 2015, the FCC established a new CBRS service in the 3.55-3.70 GHz service, which encompassed spectrum in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band. At that time, the FCC adopted rules in order to protect existing licensees’ registered base stations in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band from harmful interference from CBRS users for a fixed transition period of five years, until April 17, 2020 or for the remainder of the license term – whichever is longer (with the exception that Part 90 incumbents licensed after January 8, 2013 will be

limited to a protection period of five years). In order to be able to seek protection, the station must (a) have been registered in the FCC’s Universal Licensing System (ULS) on or before April 17, 2015 and (b) constructed and placed in service as of 1 year later or by April 17, 2016.

What is the Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone?

The FCC has established a two pronged approach which defines the Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone around each registered base station, as follows: (a) for sectors encompassing unregistered customer premise equipment (CPE), a 5.3 km radius sector from each registered base station based on the azimuth and beam width registered for that base station and (b) for sectors encompassing registered CPE, a sector centered on each base station with the registered azimuth and beam width covering all registered subscriber stations within that sector.

What Must be Filed?

The following information must be included in any filing in order to establish the Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone:

1. Identify the relevant base stations that were registered in ULS as of April 17, 2015 that will be used to define the Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone
2. Certify that the stations were constructed and operational as required by the Commission’s Rules as of April 17, 2016
3. Identify whether unregistered and/or registered CPE is being used with that base station
4. d. If registered CPE is being used, specify the distance to the furthest registered CPE from that base station

Special Instructions for Point to Point Operations

If the 3.65-3.70 GHz equipment is being used for point-to-point operations, the licensee will be required to register each end of the point-to-point links separately as a base station and identify the receive location for that end of the point-to-point link as the furthest registered CPE.

Reminder

It is important to note that the filing of supplemental information does not guaranty that the FCC will grant you protected status. Rather, those applications that pass all validation criteria in ULS will automatically be accepted. If any responses require explanation, or the application does not pass the automatic validation, ULS will change the application status from “saved” to “submitted” at which time the application will be reviewed by the FCC’s staff. A base station will only be entitled to grandfathered protection if the protection zone application has been accepted by the FCC. If further information is needed by the FCC, such information must be submitted in the form of an amendment no later than the August 7, 2017 filing deadline.

BloostonLaw Contacts: John Prendergast and Richard Rubino

FCC Wireless Buildout “Reminder” May Signal Tougher Enforcement Ahead

The FCC’s Wireless Bureau this week issued a Public Notice (DA 17-573) reminding licensees of their construction and coverage obligations, and of the high hurdle they face when seeking to extend their construction deadlines. The PN goes to great lengths in explaining the policies that underlie the Commission’s buildout rules, and may signal more of a “get tough” attitude by the Bureau towards its review of buildout showings and related enforcement matters going forward, especially those involving rural and underserved areas.

As a matter of policy, the FCC’s construction obligations ensure that scarce spectrum resources are put to use and developed in a manner that serves all communities. Service-specific rules and a licensee’s FCC authorization describe when and how wireless licensees must construct, commence service, and, as applicable, meet coverage and substantial service benchmarks. With that said, this week’s “reminder” highlights the wording of Rule Section 1.946, which specifies that a licensee’s authorization terminates automatically (in whole or in part as set forth in the service rules) without specific Commission Action if a licensee fails to commence service or operations by the expiration of its construction period.

With respect to extensions, the FCC has always expected that licensees conduct due diligence to assure they can timely construct their systems and adequately meet their service requirements. The Commission does not look favorably upon extension requests that cite miscalculations or erroneous predictions about factors such as costs, demand, developments in the market, or timing and success in obtaining permissions that may be needed for construction.

Section 1.946 (e) of the Commission’s Rules specifies just two situations that permit an extension — either “involuntary loss of site” or “other causes beyond [a licensee’s] control.” This rule also cautions that extension requests will not be granted for failure to meet a deadline due to delays caused by a failure to obtain financing, to obtain an antenna site, or to order equipment in a timely manner.

Our clients should expect the Commission to carefully examine their claims that failures to meet construction requirements were due to causes beyond their control. This stricter scrutiny means that a failed marketplace for a particular technology or spectrum — circumstances that led the FCC to grant extensions for 218-219 MHz (IVDS), 220 MHz, LMDS and MMDS licensees – will no longer be seen as an excuse. Neither will the market’s failure to accommodate a licensee’s specific business plan, such as in the event of a general economic downturn or delays given the type of technology a licensee has chosen. Moreover, a licensee’s own choice regarding which technology to support or whether any equipment is even worth deploying will generally not suffice to warrant an extension.

Even where compelling circumstances may exist, the FCC has denied extension requests that are filed at the last minute, or those that reflect a lack of substantial progress by the licensee. Our firm’s wireless clients therefore will not want to rely on the possibility of a waiver or extension of their construction/service requirements, to begin their system planning and construction well before the applicable deadlines, and to maintain detailed records of their efforts. These records will be important to establishing that a buildout failure
is truly due to circumstances beyond your control. If it proves necessary to request an extension despite diligent efforts, we can help document the justification needed to have a chance of success.

BloostonLaw Contacts: John Prendergast, Cary Mitchell

FCC Releases Updated List of Census Blocks Eligible for CAF Phase II Support, Other Updates

• On June 8, the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau announced the release of an updated list of census blocks eligible for Connect America Phase II support in states where price cap carriers accepted the statewide offers of model-based Connect America Phase II support. The FCC also asked ROR carriers to identify, by July 7, 2017, those census blocks where they do not anticipate being able to extend broadband under the reasonable request standard, so these blocks can be included in the Phase II auction.

Specifically, the FCC:

• removed census blocks where certain carriers declined the statewide offers.
• removed census blocks originally included in CenturyLink’s offer that the Commission determined should be removed from CenturyLink’s Phase II area in Missouri because they were served by Co-Mo Comm, Inc., and United Services, Inc.
• removed census blocks previously identified by price cap carriers receiving Phase II model-based support as blocks they do not intend to serve, consistent with the Commission’s requirement that price cap carriers that accepted model-based support must deploy to at least 95 percent of funded locations. These blocks will be included in the auction inventory, subject to the Commission’s eligibility conditions.
• corrected census blocks originally assigned to a carrier in the original list that have now been claimed by another price cap carrier.
• updated the carriers’ short names in the census block list to reflect Frontier’s acquisition of the Verizon companies in California and Texas, and the acquisition of Consolidated Communications’ company in Iowa (Heartland Communications Company of Iowa) by two rate-of-return carriers.

The FCC is also seeking input in the following three categories of census blocks, by July 7, 2017:

• USTelecom has submitted a list of census blocks that were originally included in the Phase II offer list but which none of the price cap carriers claim are in any of their service territories. These blocks maybe available for inclusion in the Phase II auction unless they are identified as within a rate-of-return carrier study area boundary, reclaimed by a price cap carrier, or identified by a state commission as within a carrier’s service territory according to that commission’s records.
• The list includes the extremely high-cost blocks in states where price cap carriers accepted the offers of Phase II support. Price cap carriers that intend to meet their obligation to serve a specific number of locations in a state by providing service to extremely high-cost locations in adjacent eligible census blocks must identify those specific blocks.
• Rate-of-return carriers are asked to identify those census blocks where they do not anticipate being able to extend broadband under the reasonable request standard, so these blocks can be included in the Phase II auction.

A copy of the updated list is available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-345242A1.xlsx. The high-cost blocks eligible for Phase II model support are identified on the list as HC; the extremely high-cost blocks are identified as EHC; and the unclaimed blocks are identified in column H with the number one.

BloostonLaw Contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, Mary Sisak, and Sal Taillefer.

President Trump to Nominate Jessica Rosenworcel as FCC Commissioner

Late in the day on June 13, President Trump nominated Jessica Rosenworcel to again serve as a Commissioner at the FCC. According to Reuters, industry and congressional officials also expect Trump to nominate Brendan Carr, a Republican who is currently general counsel at the FCC and an adviser to Pai, to the last open seat on the Commission.

As we have reported in previous editions of the BloostonLaw Telecom Update, the once-and-future Commissioner’s road has been a long one. President Obama nominated Commissioner Rosenworcel for her second term back in May of 2015, but objections by several Republican Senators kept her confirmation in limbo until her first term expired in December of 2016 — more than a year later. Republicans had previously stated that Commissioner Rosenworcel would not be confirmed unless then-Chairman Tom Wheeler agreed to resign. When Wheeler finally made that commitment to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, it was apparently late, and the Senate adjourned the last session of that Congress without confirming Rosenworcel’s seat.

In a statement, current Chairman Ajit Pai said, ““I congratulate Jessica Rosenworcel on the announcement that President Trump will nominate her to serve another term on the Federal Communications Commission. She has a distinguished record of public service, including the four-and-a-half years we worked together at this agency, and I look forward to working with her once again to advance the public interest.”

BloostonLaw Contacts: Ben Dickens and Gerry Duffy.

Law & Regulation

FCC Reminds MVPDs of July 10 Deadline to Pass Through Emergency Information

On June 8, the FCC’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau issued a Public Notice reminding multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) of their upcoming obligation to pass through a secondary audio stream containing audible emergency information, when they permit consumers to access linear programming on second screen devices over the MVPD’s network as part of their MVPD services. The compliance deadline for this requirement is July 10.

Specifically, each MVPD must ensure that any application or plug-in that it provides to consumers to access linear programming (i.e., programming that is pre-scheduled by the MVPD) on tablets, smartphones, laptops, and similar devices over the MVPD’s network as part of its MVPD services is capable of passing through an aural representation of the emergency information on a secondary audio stream. For purposes of these rules, linear programming is accessed over the MVPD’s network if it can only be received via a connection provided by the MVPD using an MVPD-provided application or plug-in. This is distinguishable from video programming provided over the Internet, which can be accessed by an MVPD subscriber using either an MVPD-provided connection, or a third-party Internet service provider or broadband connection.

Companies with questions about the accessible emergency information rules should feel free to contact the firm for more information.

BloostonLaw Contacts: Gerry Duffy and Sal Taillefer.

Comment Deadline Established for Local Service Rate Floor Comments Due July 10

On June 8, the FCC published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on eliminating the local service rate floor in the Federal Register. Accordingly, comments are due July 10 and reply comments are due July 24.

In the NPRM, the FCC seeks comment on whether it should change the current rate floor methodology or eliminate the rate floor and its accompanying reporting obligation entirely. The FCC asks whether it should allow carriers to charge a rate that is one standard deviation below the average urban rate; or replace the single, national rate floor with state or regional rate floors; or even eliminate the rate floor altogether?

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

Industry

$280 Million Civil Penalty Awarded Against Dish Network for Do Not Call Violations

On June 6, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois found Dish Network liable for millions of calls that violated the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) — including Do Not Call (DNC), entity-specific, and abandoned-call violations -- the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and state law. The civil penalty award includes $168 million for the federal government, which is a record in a DNC case. The remainder of the civil penalty was awarded to the states.

The complaint counts relating to the TSR alleged that Dish initiated, or caused a telemarketer to initiate, outbound telephone calls to phone numbers on the DNC Registry, in violation of the TSR, violated the TSR’s prohibition on abandoned calls, and assisted and facilitated telemarketers when it knew, or consciously avoided knowing, that the telemarketer was engaged in violations of the law.

Dish markets its programming directly, through telemarketing vendors it contracts with to engage in telemarketing, and through authorized dealers or retailers. The court opinion ruled in favor of the federal government on all of the TSR counts in the complaint, and found more than 66 million TSR violations.

In awarding the civil penalty amount, the court found that Dish’s culpability for the violations was significant. In particular, the court stated that, “Dish has some level of culpability for its direct marketing and a significantly higher level of culpability for the illegal calls made through its Order Entry program.” The court also stated that, “Dish initially hired Order Entry Retailers based on one factor, the ability to generate activations. Dish cared about very little else. As a result, Dish created a situation in which unscrupulous sales persons used illegal practices to sell Dish Network programming any way they could.”

According to court filings, Dish authorized Order Entry Retailers to market Dish Network programming nationally Dish would then complete the sale provide for the delivery and installation of the satellite dish and related equipment, and provide the programming.”

Deadlines

JULY 3: FCC FORM 481 (CARRIER ANNUAL REPORTING DATA COLLECTION FORM). All eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) must report the information required by Section 54.313, which includes outage, unfulfilled service request, and complaint data, broken out separately for voice and broadband services, information on the ETC’s holding company, operating companies, ETC affiliates and any branding in response to section 54.313(a)(8); its CAF-ICC certification, if applicable; its financial information, if a privately held rate-of-return carrier; and its satellite backhaul certification, if applicable. Form 481 must not only be filed with USAC, but also with the FCC and the relevant state commission and tribal authority, as appropriate. Although USAC treats the filing as confidential, filers must seek confidential treatment separately with the FCC and the relevant state commission and tribal authority if confidential treatment is desired.

BloostonLaw Contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Sal Taillefer.

JULY 3: MOBILITY FUND PHASE I ANNUAL REPORT. Winning bidders in Auction 901 that are authorized to receive Mobility Fund Phase I support are required to submit to the FCC an annual report each year on July 1 for the five years following authorization. This year, July 1 falls on a Saturday; therefore, the report is due July 3. Each annual report must be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of the FCC, clearly referencing WT Docket No. 10-208; the Universal Service Administrator; and the relevant state commissions, relevant authority in a U.S. Territory, or Tribal governments, as appropriate. The information and certifications required to be included in the annual report are described in Section 54.1009 of the FCC’s rules.

BloostonLaw Contacts: John Prendergast and Sal Taillefer.

JULY 31: FCC FORM 507, UNIVERSAL SERVICE QUARTERLY LINE COUNT UPDATE. Line count updates are required to recalculate a carrier's per line universal service support, and is filed with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). This information must be submitted on July 31 each year by all rate-of-return incumbent carriers, and on a quarterly basis if a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier (CETC) has initiated service in the rate-of-return incumbent carrier’s service area and reported line count data to USAC in the rate-of-return incumbent carrier’s service area, in order for the incumbent carrier to be eligible to receive Interstate Common Line Support (ICLS). This quarterly filing is due July 31 and covers lines served as of December 31, 2013. Incumbent carriers filing on a quarterly basis must also file on September 30 (for lines served as of March 31, 2014); December 30 (for lines served as of June 30, 2014), and March 31, 2015 (for lines served as of September 30, 2014).

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

JULY 31: CARRIER IDENTIFICATION CODE (CIC) REPORTS. Carrier Identification Code (CIC) Reports must be filed by the last business day of July (this year, July 31). These reports are required of all carriers who have been assigned a CIC code by NANPA. Failure to file could result in an effort by NANPA to reclaim it, although according to the Guidelines this process is initiated with a letter from NANPA regarding the apparent non-use of the CIC code. The assignee can then respond with an explanation. (Guidelines Section 6.2). The CIC Reporting Requirement is included in the CIC Assignment Guidelines, produced by ATIS. According to section 1.4 of that document: At the direction of the NANPA, the access providers and the entities who are assigned CICs will be requested to provide access and usage information to the NANPA, on a semi-annual basis to ensure effective management of the CIC resource. (Holders of codes may respond to the request at their own election). Access provider and entity reports shall be submitted to NANPA no later than January 31 for the period ending December 31, and no later than July 31 for the period ending June 30. It is also referenced in the NANPA Technical Requirements Document, which states at 7.18.6: CIC holders shall provide a usage report to the NANPA per the industry CIC guidelines … The NAS shall be capable of accepting CIC usage reports per guideline requirements on January 31 for the period ending December 31 and no later than July 31 for the period ending June 30. These reports may also be mailed and accepted by the NANPA in paper form. Finally, according to the NANPA website, if no local exchange carrier reports access or usage for a given CIC, NANPA is obliged to reclaim it. The semi-annual utilization and access reporting mechanism is described at length in the guidelines.

BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens and Gerry Duffy.

Calendar At-A-Glance

June
Jun. 15 – Comments are due on Wireless Broadband Infrastructure proceeding.
Jun. 15 – Comments are due on Wireline Broadband Infrastructure proceeding.
Jun. 16 – 15-Day Tariff Filings are due.
Jun. 16 – Comments are due on Speed Disclosure Petition for Declaratory Ruling.
Jun. 22 – Comments are due on FY2017 Regulatory Fee NPRM.
Jun. 23 – Petitions regarding 15-Day Tariff Filings are due.
Jun. 26 – Reply comments are due on remaining VRS FNPRM sections.
Jun. 26 – 7-Day Tariff Filings are due.
Jun. 27 – Replies to Petitions regarding 15-Day Tariff Filings are due.
Jun. 29 – Petitions regarding 7-Day Tariff Filings are due (NOON EST).
Jun. 30 – Replies to Petitions regarding 7-Day Tariff Filings are due (NOON EST).
Jun. 30 – Study Area Boundary Recertifications are due.

July
Jul. 3 – FCC Form 481 is due.
Jul. 3 – Mobility Fund Phase I Recipient Reports are due.
Jul 3. – Comments are due on Robocall Blocking proceeding.
Jul 3. – Reply comments are due on Speed Disclosure Petition for Declaratory Ruling.
Jul. 6 – Comments are due on BDS for Model Based RoR Carrier Petition for Rulemaking.
Jul. 7 – Comments are due on CAF Phase II Census Block List.
Jul. 7 – Reply comments are due on FY2017 Regulatory Fee NPRM.
Jul. 10 – Comments are due on Local Service Rate Floor NPRM.
Jul. 10 – Deadline for MVPDs to Pass Through Emergency Information.
Jul. 11 – Reply comments are due on VRS User Equipment Profile FNPRM.
Jul. 17 – Reply comments are due on Wireless Broadband Infrastructure proceeding.
Jul. 17 – Reply comments are due on Wireline Broadband Infrastructure proceeding.
Jul. 17 – Comments are due on Broadband Title I Reclassification NPRM.
Jul. 21 – Reply comments are due on BDS for Model Based RoR Carrier Petition for Rulemaking.
Jul. 24 – Reply comments are due on Local Service Rate Floor NPRM.
Jul. 31 – FCC Form 507 (Universal Service Quarterly Line Count Update) is due.
Jul. 31 – Carrier Identification Code (CIC) Report is due.
Jul. 31 – International Traffic Data Report is due.
Jul. 31 – Reply comments are due on Robocall Blocking proceeding.

August
Aug. 7 – Deadline to file for 3.65-3.7 GHz Grandfathered Protection Zone.
Aug. 16 – Reply comments are due on Broadband Title I Reclassification NPRM.

Extreme : Grows with Avaya Networking Acquisition

06/13/2017 | 08:22am EST

In an outcome that was unsurprising for most, Extreme Networks emerged as the winning bidder for the Avaya enterprise networking business. It will be moving ahead with the $100 million acquisition of the unit following the firms filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January (2017).

Avaya originally purchased its networking business from the former giant in the sector, Nortel, in 2009. The acquisition came in similar circumstances to the ones that Avaya are facing now. After all, the purchase was made when Nortel fell into bankruptcy and was forced to shed a great deal of its business throughout a serious of auctions.

The Avaya Restructuring Opportunity

Avaya declared bankruptcy in an attempt to give itself more time to restructure and support its balance sheet. According to Kevin Kennedy, the CEO of the brand, Avaya believes that selling their networking business is the best way to move forward. They feel that this step gives them a positive path for all networking partners, and enables them to focus on their UC and contact centre solutions.

According to Extreme Networks president & CEO, Ed Meyercord, the recent acquisition will help the growing company to establish itself as a major competitor in the world of enterprise networking. Extreme believes that the Avaya business has the potential to generate astonishing revenues of around $200 million every year. This will add to several recent acquisitions that have helped the firm to continue its expansion.

Not the First Acquisition for Extreme

In 2016, Extreme Networks purchased the Zebra wireless local area network business for $55 million. Recently in this year, it also purchased the Brocade data centre networking assets after the company's new owner, Broadcom revealed that they were only interested in the storage elements of the business.

While the assets obtained from Zebra are expected to deliver about $115 in revenues to Extreme Networks, Brocades are projected to deliver over $200 million during Extremes financial year in 2018, which will begin on the first of July this year.

According to Meyercord, the purchase of Avayas networking business will complement the company's existing portfolio and help to broaden their range of enterprise solutions and capabilities across their target markets. The brand is currently moving forward with integration planning for both the Brocade data centre business and Avaya networking business.

(c) All KUNA right are reserved 2017. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info)., source Middle East & North African Newspapers

Brad Dye, Ron Mercer, Allan Angus, Vic Jackson, and Ira Wiesenfeld 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. Each one has unique abilities. We would be happy to help you with a project, and maybe save you some time and money.

Note: We do not like Patent Trolls, i.e. “a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question.” We have helped some prominent law firms defend their clients against this annoyance, and would be happy to do some more of this same kind of work.

Some people use the title “consultant” when they don't have a real job. We actually do consulting work, and help others based on our many years of experience.

---

“If you would know the road ahead, ask someone who has traveled it.”
— Chinese Proverb

Wireless Network Planners
Wireless Specialists

R.H. (Ron) Mercer Consultant 217 First Street East Northport, NY 11731
Telephone: 631-786-9359
www.wirelessplanners.com
wirelessplannerron@gmail.com

54-46 Was My Number • Playing For Change Band • Live in Brazil

Published on May 12, 2017
The Playing For Change Band is back on the road for their Peace Through Music World Tour and are making their way to the United States! This band is a unique fusion of influences and talents from around the world, and these passionate musicians will have you out of your seat dancing one minute and move you to tears the next.