| Wireless News Aggregation |
|
Welcome Back To The Wireless Messaging News
Sorry the newsletter is a day late this week. I have been away in another city helping a friend who is recovering from cancer and I have been dealing with some health problems myself. Never-the-less I hope you enjoy this issue. I sent Tweet out about an hour ago saying that I was a day late and a dollar short. Part Two of an article this week from our contributor Rex Lee. Don't miss it. Rex does a lot of hard work researching the facts for his articles. I believe he is an ethical and honest person. Rex M. Lee is a privacy and data security consultant and Blackops Partners senior analyst and researcher. |
NO POLITICS HERE 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. TIME TO HUDDLE UP 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 own opinions.
Prism-IPX Systems is growing and they are looking for more good software developers with communications experience. Additional information is available on their web site. Click here .
We need your help. This is probably the only weekly news source about paging and wireless messaging.
|
Subscribe Here IT'S FREE * required field
|
 |
Advertiser Index
|
| Leavitt Communications |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Telecom and Tech Giant Conflict of Interest and Competition Violations: Part 2
February 1, 2019 Updated: February 10, 2019 Commentary In part 1 of this article, I discussed a conflict of interest between data-driven technology providers such as Google, Apple, and Microsoft, and telecom providers such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint. The conflict of interest centers on the fact that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), state attorneys general, lawmakers, and telecom providers are enabling data-driven technology providers to monitor, track, and data-mine U.S. telecom subscribers by way of the subscriber’s smartphone or tablet PC. This is tantamount to AT&T enabling numerous companies to surveil and data-mine (including content) home and office phones and PCs for financial gain. A smartphone is an integrated cellular phone and PC. This means that a smartphone is no less significant than a home and office phone or a PC. No individual, business professional, or government official would willingly enable multiple companies from around the world, including China, to surveil and data-mine their home and office phone or PC for financial gain. Yet this is what’s happening when it comes to the use of smartphones, tablet PCs, voice-automated products, connected products, and PCs that are supported by the Android operating system (OS), Apple iOS, and Microsoft Windows OS.
It’s clear that any company that can surveil and data-mine a telecom subscriber’s personal and professional telecom-related activities will have a huge advantage over its business competition. Companies such as Alphabet Inc. (Google) compete in many industries worldwide, yet are enabled to surveil and data-mine telecom subscribers, via smartphones that are supported by protected telecom infrastructure that’s governed by the FCC. Consider this: If Google was a state actor, it would need a warrant from a domestic judge or the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC or also known as FISA) in order to lawfully surveil and data-mine a U.S. telecom-product user. State actors such as the Chinese company Baidu are enabled, through partnerships with companies such as Google, to surveil and data-mine U.S. telecom subscribers by way of intrusive pre-installed content such as web browsers, apps, and widgets, plus other intrusive and leaky content. The public and lawmakers need to understand that intrusive content, such as apps developed by Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Amazon, Facebook, and Baidu, are nothing more than a legal form of malware programmed to enable the app developer with the ability to surveil and data-mine the app user for financial gain. Privacy and Cyber Security Risks Defense contractors, business professionals, government employees, lawmakers, members of the military and law enforcement, first responders, utility workers, legal professionals, and doctors all work within a confidential and protected environment. This means that confidential and protected telecommunications, information, and data are governed by confidentiality agreements, nondisclosure agreements, industry and federal cyber security standards, federal information-processing standards, and confidentiality laws that govern classified information, medical information, and client-attorney privilege. Enabling companies such a Google or Baidu to indiscriminately surveil and data-mine U.S. telecommunications subscribers means that such companies can harvest confidential and protected data, which is illegal, as well as unethical, on numerous levels since Google and Baidu compete in numerous industries worldwide. Obviously, companies such as Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Baidu, and other tech giants have a huge competitive advantage over their existing and future competitors, stifling competition and innovation, while killing privacy and cyber security in the process. Business professionals who work for companies that compete against the tech giants are using leaky telecommunication products that expose their confidential and protected corporate information to existing and future business competitors. These business professionals might as well be enabling the tech giants to surveil and data-mine their home and office phones and PCs for financial gain and competitive advantage. Business professionals, for the most part, only have two choices when it comes to smartphones: Apple iPhones or products supported by the Android OS. Because of deals between Apple and Google, business professionals who work for companies that are in competition with Google have virtually no choice but to use telecom products that leak confidential and protected telecommunications and data to Google. Many Apple users are unaware of deals between OS developers such as Apple and Google that enable companies such as Google to surveil and data-mine Apple product users. This means that even though Apple views Google as a competitor, Apple still values Google as a customer, which reportedly pays Apple upwards of $9 billion to $12 billion a year to gain access to Apple product users. Google and Microsoft, in turn, auction off their OS product users to the highest bidders, such as Baidu, which is a state-owned Chinese company and a Google content developer. These types of exclusive deals between OS developers and original equipment manufacturers (OEM) are clear examples of violations of antitrust and unfair business competition, which the FTC and state attorneys general are refusing to enforce. Additionally, BlackBerry and flip phone OEMs have adopted the Android OS, so there is virtually no option in the marketplace for a person to buy a telecom product that doesn’t leak confidential and protected telecommunications and data to Google. In March of 2018, I tried to purchase a private, secure, and safe smartphone, tablet PC, or even a flip phone from Verizon. Initially, Verizon said that they could sell me such a product, but after three months of vetting their so-called private, secure, and safe solutions, I proved to Verizon that all suggested solutions were not private, secure, or safe. In July 2018, Verizon agreed with my analysis of their solutions. To my astonishment, Verizon admitted that they could not sell me a private, secure, or safe telecom product due to uncontrollable pre-installed surveillance and data-mining technology (apps, widgets, etc.) developed by Google, Apple, and Microsoft plus their affiliates such as Amazon, Facebook, and Baidu. “We have reviewed your request at the highest levels of our organization and have confirmed that the only solutions to make a phone private and secure are available through third parties, not directly from Verizon. . . . Additionally, Verizon is not equipped to address pre-installed solutions or applications on any device,” Verizon told me on July 2, 2018. Not only are business professionals leaking confidential and protected information to their existing or future business competitors, but they are also leaking information to nation-state companies from China, such as Baidu. The Google–Baidu relationship should be one of the biggest news stories in tech and telecom, yet major media outlets such as 60 Minutes, CBS News, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, and The New York Times don’t report on the Google–Baidu relationship. However, all major media outlets have no problem reporting on intrusive telecom-related surveillance and data-mining technology developed by ZTE and Huawei. Why are the FTC, FCC, and lawmakers enabling Google to distribute telecom-related surveillance and data-mining technology developed by a nation-state company from China? How did we get here? Non-enforcement of Existing Laws Lobbyists for tech giants have paved the way for companies such as Alphabet Inc. to surveil and data-mine U.S. telecommunication subscribers (individuals and businesses) and authorized device users, which include adults and children. The former chairman of Alphabet Inc., Eric Schmidt, explained in an interview with The Atlantic in 2010 how tech giants can lawfully buy off lawmakers in Washington: “‘The average American doesn’t realize how much of the laws are written by lobbyists’ to protect incumbent interests,” Schmidt told Atlantic editor James Bennet at the Washington Ideas Forum. ‘It’s shocking how the system actually works.’ . . . ‘Washington is an incumbent protection machine.'” Later in the interview, Schmidt says, “Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it.” Due to the predatory surveillance and data-mining business practices employed by Google, I believe Google crossed the “creepy line” in the 1990s, while the company today is forcing their way into all of our lives via smartphones, tablet PCs, voice-automated products, and other connected technology such as everyday electronics that are supported by the Android OS. These privacy and cyber security issues are not just limited to Google but are systemic to any smartphone, tablet PC, voice-automated product, connected product, and PC that is supported by the Apple iOS and Microsoft Windows OS. Frankly, Google, Apple, and Microsoft have killed privacy and cyber security for good, due to their predatory surveillance and data-mining business practices. Due to potential violations of existing consumer law coupled with civil liberty, privacy, cyber security, and safety threats associated with smartphones, PCs, and other connected technologies, it’s time for lawmakers to pass legislation that will protect technology product users from such companies discussed above. It’s time for an “Electronic Bill of Rights.” In my next article, which will be the last in this series, I’ll address the need for an Electronic Bill of Rights. Rex M. Lee is a privacy and data security consultant and Blackops Partners senior analyst and researcher. Visit him at MySmartPrivacy.com Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. |
| Source: | The Epoch Times |
Paging Transmitters 150/900 MHz The RFI High Performance Paging Transmitter is designed for use in campus, city, state and country-wide paging systems. Designed for use where reliable simulcast systems where RF signal overlap coverage is critical.
Built-in custom interface for Prism-IPX ipBSC Base Controller for remote control, management and alarm reporting.
Prism-IPX Systems LLC. 11175 Cicero Dr., Alpharetta, GA 30022 Back To Paging Still The Most Reliable Protocol For Wireless Messaging!
|
|
GLENAYRE INFRASTRUCTUREI would like to recommend Easy Solutions for Support of all Glenayre Paging Equipment. This Texas company is owned and operated by Vaughan Bowden. I have known Vaughan for over 35 years. Without going into a long list of his experience and qualifications, let me just say that he was the V.P. of Engineering at PageNet which was—at that time—the largest paging company in the world. So Vaughan knows Paging. GTES is no longer offering support contracts. GTES was the original group from Vancouver that was setup to offer support to customers that wanted to continue with the legacy Glenayre support. Many U.S. customers chose not to use this service because of the price and the original requirement to upgrade to version 8.0 software (which required expensive hardware upgrades, etc.). Most contracts ended as of February 2018. If you are at all concerned about future support of Glenayre products, especially the “king of the hill” the GL3000 paging control terminal, I encourage you to talk to Vaughan about a service contract and please tell him about my recommendation. |
The Wireless Messaging News
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 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. |
|||||||||||||||
| Voluntary Newsletter Supporters By Donation |
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
Donate to have your company's logo added. |
Incyte Capital Holdings LLC
|
|
Critical Messaging that works
Secure . . . Dependable . . . and Encrypted |
|
|
Click on the image above for more info about advertising here. |
INTERNET Protocol Terminal The IPT accepts INTERNET or serial messaging using various protocols and can easily convert them to different protocols, or send them out as paging messages. An ideal platform for hospitals, on-site paging applications, or converting legacy systems to modern protocols.
Additional/Optional Features
Prism-IPX Systems LLC. 11175 Cicero Dr., Alpharetta, GA 30022 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paging Data Receiver PDR-4 The PDR-4 is a multi-function paging data receiver that decodes paging messages and outputs them via the serial port, USB or Ethernet connectors. Designed for use with Prism-IPX ECHO software Message Logging Software to receive messages and log the information for proof of transmission over the air, and if the data was error free.
Prism-IPX Systems LLC. 11175 Cicero Dr., Alpharetta, GA 30022 |
Wireless Network Planners
|
|||||||||||
|
Remote AB Switches ABX-1 switches are often used at remote transmitter sites to convert from old, outdated and unsupported controllers to the new modern Prism-IPX ipBSC base station controllers. Remotely switch to new controllers with GUI commands. ABX-1 ABX-3 switches are widely used for enabling or disabling remote equipment and switching I/O connections between redundant messaging systems. ABX-3 Common Features:
Prism-IPX Systems LLC. 11175 Cicero Dr., Alpharetta, GA 30022 |
| Leavitt Communications |
|
|||||||
Sprint Sues AT&T Over ‘Fake’ 5G Ads, AT&T Fights BackSprint filed suit February 7 in federal court, alleging AT&T’s new “5G Evolution” branding on its phones and networks that use 4G LTE technology is false advertising. In the 27-page document filed with the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, Sprint alleges AT&T, “has employed numerous deceptive tactics to mislead consumers into believing” its “offering a 5th generation wireless network.” “What AT&T touts as 5G, however, is nothing more than an enhanced fourth generation Long Term Evolution wireless service, known as 4G LTE Advanced, which is offered by all other major wireless carriers,” states Sprint. Sprint alleges AT&T seeks to gain an unfair advantage in the race to 5G, “But calling its network “5GE” (or “5G E” or “5G Evolution”) does not make it a 5G network and instead deceives customers into believing it is something that it is not.” Sprint tells the court, it’s a direct competitor with AT&T, and AT&T’s actions “threaten Sprint’s business and goodwill,” and “harms consumers.” Sprint also claims it’s lost sales as a result. It does not specify an amount in damages it seeks, stating the figure should be determined at trial. In a statement provided to Engadget, AT&T said in response: “We understand why our competitors don’t like what we are doing, but our customers love it. We introduced 5G Evolution more than two years ago, clearly defining it as an evolutionary step to standards-based 5G. 5G Evolution and the 5GE indicator simply let customers know when their device is in an area where speeds up to twice as fast as standard LTE are available. That’s what 5G Evolution is, and we are delighted to deliver it to our customers.” AT&T stated further: “We will fight this lawsuit while continuing to deploy 5G Evolution in addition to standards-based mobile 5G. Customers want and deserve to know when they are getting better speeds.” AT&T also criticized Sprint’s pending $26 billion merger with T-Mobile, saying, “Sprint will have to reconcile its arguments to the FCC that it cannot deploy a widespread 5G network without T-Mobile while simultaneously claiming in this suit to be launching “legitimate 5G technology imminently.” Asked about the lawsuit by CNBC Friday, AT&T Chairman/CEO Randall Stephenson said: “We feel very comfortable with how we have characterized the new service that we’re launching. When we go in a market … and we light up this spectrum, our customers are seeing radical increases in speed and performance on the network. This is a step that is required to get to ultimate 5G. And it’s an evolutionary step to 5G.” Stephenson further explained: “We are characterizing this as 5GE, 5G Evolution. We obviously have done our homework. We’ve done a lot of work around how we characterize this. And we’re being very clear with our customers that this is an evolutionary step.” |
||||
| Source: | Inside Towers newsletter | Courtesy of the editor of Inside Towers. |
| BloostonLaw Newsletter |
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 kind permission from the firm. The firm's contact information is included at the end of this section of the newsletter.
REMINDER: CPNI Reports are Due March 1Telecommunications carriers and interconnected VoIP providers are required to file, by March 1, 2018, their annual certification documenting compliance with the FCC’s CPNI rules. CPNI includes sensitive personal information that carriers collect about their customers during the course of their business relationship (e.g., telephone numbers of calls made and received; the frequency, duration, and timing of such calls; and any services purchased by the consumer, such as call waiting and voicemail). The FCC’s rules seek to ensure that CPNI is adequately protected from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. BloostonLaw has developed a compliance manual for CPNI, which is available by contacting the firm. BloostonLaw is also available to assist in filing the associated certification. BloostonLaw Contacts: Gerry Duffy and Sal Taillefer. HeadlinesFCC to Hold Open Meeting on February 14As we reported in a previous edition of the BloostonLaw Telecom Update, because the FCC is currently funded under a Continuing Resolution that runs through February 15, the FCC's statutorily-required monthly meeting has been moved from February 21 to February 14. The FCC publicly releases the draft text of each item expected to be considered at this Open Commission Meeting, and one-page cover sheets are included in the public drafts to help summarize each item. These materials are linked in the summaries below; the final item considered at the meeting may differ.
BloostonLaw Contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and John Prendergast. Changes to Filing Requirements for Broadcast Station Documents EffectiveOn February 11, the FCC issued a Public Notice reminding broadcast stations that the revisions adopted in the Report and Order of October 23, 2018 became effective January 22. Accordingly, as of January 22, stations were no longer required to file paper copies of Section 73.3613 documents routinely with the FCC. Specifically, the October Order eliminated the requirement that licensees and permittees of commercial and noncommercial AM, FM, television, and international broadcast stations routinely file with the FCC paper copies of the station documents specified in Section 73.3613 of the FCC’s rules. However, commercial and noncommercial AM, FM, and television stations must continue to either (i) upload the documents directly to the online public inspection file (OPIF) or (ii) maintain an up-to-date list of the documents in the OPIF and provide copies to requesting parties within seven days. The Order explicitly retained the FCC’s ability to obtain Section 73.3613 documents from licensees and permittees upon request, as needed. BloostonLaw Contacts: John Prendergast. Chairman Pai Continues to Press for Caller ID Authentication from CarriersOn February 13, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai issued a Press Release calling for the nationwide carriers to implement “a robust caller ID authentication system to combat illegal caller ID spoofing.” As we reported in a previous edition of the BloostonLaw Telecom Update, Chairman Pai sent letters demanding that the large carriers begin providing caller ID authentication for consumers in 2019. According to the Press Release, several telecom companies—including wireless companies, traditional landline providers, and tech companies offering VoIP—outlined their plans. The carriers’ responses can be found here. Chairman Pai indicated that he believes that wireless providers, interconnected VoIP providers, and telephone companies should make real caller ID authentication – known as the SHAKEN/STIR framework – a priority, and that major carriers can meet his 2019 goal. The SHAKEN/STIR framework is a set of protocols and a multi-phase framework in which calls traveling through interconnected phone networks would have their caller ID “signed” as legitimate by originating carriers and validated by other carriers before reaching consumers. The framework digitally validates the handoff of phone calls passing through the complex web of networks, allowing the phone company of the consumer receiving the call to verify that a call is from the person making it. “American consumers are sick and tired of unwanted robocalls, this consumer among them. Caller ID authentication will be a significant step towards ending the scourge of spoofed robocalls. It’s time for carriers to implement robust caller ID authentication. Uniform adoption will help improve authentication throughout the network and make sure no consumer gets left behind. I applaud those companies that have committed to deploy the SHAKEN/STIR framework in 2019. This goal should be achievable for every major wireless provider, interconnected VoIP operator, and telephone company—and I expect those lagging behind to make every effort to catch up. If it appears major carriers won’t meet the deadline to get this done this year, the FCC will have to consider regulatory intervention,” said Chairman Pai. BloostonLaw Contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and John Prendergast. Law & RegulationPole Attachment Presumption Rule Effective March 11On February 7, the FCC published in the Federal Register notice that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the FCC's revised pole attachment complaint rules. The revised rule is effective March 11. In the Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, the FCC, among other things, revised Section 1.1413 of its rules to establish a presumption that an incumbent LEC is similarly situated to an “attacher” that is a telecommunications carrier or a cable television system providing telecommunications services for purposes of obtaining comparable pole attachment rates, terms, or conditions. The FCC also established a presumption that an incumbent LEC may be charged no higher than the FCC-defined pole attachment rate for telecommunications carriers, as determined in accordance with 47 CFR 1.1406(d)(2). To rebut these presumptions, the utility must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the incumbent LEC receives benefits under its pole attachment agreement with a utility that materially advantages the incumbent LEC over other telecommunications carriers or cable television systems providing telecommunications services on the same poles. BloostonLaw Contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, Mary Sisak, and Sal Taillefer. UMFUS and FSS Sharing Rules Now Applicable to 24 GHz BandOn February 7, the FCC published in the Federal Register notice that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection associated with the FCC's revised 24 GHz sharing rules. The applicability of these rules to 24GHz spectrum is now effective. Specifically, in the Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services Second and Third Report and Orders, the FCC added portions of the 24 GHz band (24.75-25.25 GHz) and 47 GHz band (47.2-48.2 GHz) to the bands that are subject to the framework for sharing between the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) and the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) established in Section 25.136 of its rules. Therefore, the FCC expanded the scope of the rules to include additional bands and, since the rules now apply in additional bands, the number of respondents, the annual number of responses, annual burden hours and annual costs will increase for this collection. In addition, the FCC modified the sharing criteria between UMFUS and FSS to facilitate deployment of FSS earth stations in smaller markets and decrease the possibility of conflicts between UMFUS and FSS. The other rule sections previously approved this particular OMB Control Number 3060-1215 have not changed. BloostonLaw Contacts: John Prendergast and Cary Mitchell. FCC Fines Coal Company for Unauthorized Transfer of ControlOn February 7, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability proposing a penalty of $25,000 against Lexington Coal Company, LLC (Lexington), licensee of 23 Private Land Mobile Radio Service stations (PLMRS), including WPZR865, Madison, West Virginia, for its apparent willful and repeated violation of the FCC’s rules by engaging in a substantial transfer of control of its FCC-licensed radio stations from Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. (Alpha) on October 23, 2017, without prior FCC consent. According to the NAL, on October 23, 2017, Lexington and Alpha completed a transaction whereby Alpha conveyed real and personal properties located in Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia to Lexington. These assets included licensed stations held by the following Alpha subsidiaries: Independence Coal Company, Inc.; Kingwood Mining Company, LLC; Long Fork Coal Company; Martin County Coal Corporation; Performance Coal Company; Rockspring Development, Inc.; and Sidney Coal Company, Inc. On February 1, 2018, nearly four months after the transfer of the station licenses, the parties brought this matter to the attention of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Wireless Bureau) by filing a remedial assignment of authorization application for consent to the transfer of control of the private land mobile licenses to Lexington. The application additionally sought a waiver for failure to obtain prior FCC approval for the transaction; the parties also requested the application be granted nunc pro tunc.* In an accompanying Public Interest Statement and Request for Waiver, Alpha proffered no explanation for its failure to request FCC consent prior to the transaction. The Wireless Bureau granted consent to the transfer of control on February 12, 2018, subject to the special condition that the grant does not preclude or prejudice any enforcement action related to the unauthorized assignment of authorization.
BloostonLaw Contacts: John Prendergast and Richard Rubino. IndustryFCC Appoints Members to New Federal-State Joint Board on SeparationsOn February 8, the FCC issued an Order appointing Commissioner Geoffrey Starks to serve on the Federal- State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations (Separations Joint Board) and the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Universal Service Joint Board). In addition, Commissioner Starks becomes a member of the Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Services (Advanced Services Joint Conference) by virtue of his position on the FCC. On February 11, the FCC issued another Order appointing John Gavan, Commissioner, Colorado Public Utilities Commission, and Dan Lipschultz, Commissioner, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, to serve on the Separations Joint Board. Mr. Gavan’s appointment fills the position recently vacated by Wendy M. Moser, Commissioner, Colorado Public Utilities Commission, and Mr. Lipschultz’s appointment fills the position recently vacated by Travis Kavulla, Commissioner, Montana Public Service Commission. DeadlinesMARCH 1: COPYRIGHT STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FORM FOR CABLE COMPANIES. This form, plus royalty payment for the second half of calendar year 2018, is due March 1. The form covers the period July 1 to December 31, 2018, and is due to be mailed directly to cable TV operators by the Library of Congress’ Copyright Office. If you do not receive the form, please contact the firm. BloostonLaw Contact: Gerry Duffy. MARCH 1: CPNI ANNUAL CERTIFICATION. Carriers should modify (as necessary) and complete their “Annual Certification of CPNI Compliance” for 2019. The certification must be filed with the FCC by March 1. Note that the annual certification should include the following three required Exhibits: (a) a detailed Statement Explaining How The Company’s Operating Procedures Ensure Compliance With The FCC’S CPNI Rules to reflect the Company’s policies and information; (b) a Statement of Actions Taken Against Data Brokers; and (c) a Summary of Customer Complaints Regarding Unauthorized Release of CPNI. A company officer with personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the rules must execute the Certification, place a copy of the Certification and accompanying Exhibits in the Company’s CPNI Compliance Records, and file the certification with the FCC in the correct fashion. Our clients can forward the original to BloostonLaw in time for the firm to make the filing with the FCC by March 1, if desired. BloostonLaw is prepared to help our clients meet this requirement, which we expect will be strictly enforced, by assisting with preparation of their certification filing; reviewing the filing to make sure that the required showings are made; filing the certification with the FCC, and obtaining a proof-of-filing copy for your records. Clients interested in obtaining BloostonLaw's CPNI compliance manual should contact the firm. BloostonLaw Contacts: Gerry Duffy MARCH 1: FCC FORM 477, LOCAL COMPETITION & BROADBAND REPORTING FORM. This annual form is due March 1 and September 1 annually. The FCC requires facilities-based wired, terrestrial fixed wireless, and satellite broadband service providers to report on FCC Form 477 the number of broadband subscribers they have in each census tract they serve. The Census Bureau changed the boundaries of some census tracts as part of the 2010 Census. Specifically, three types of entities must file this form: MARCH 1: FCC FORM 477, LOCAL COMPETITION & BROADBAND REPORTING FORM. This annual form is due March 1 and September 1 annually. The FCC requires facilities-based wired, terrestrial fixed wireless, and satellite broadband service providers to report on FCC Form 477 the number of broadband subscribers they have in each census tract they serve. The Census Bureau changed the boundaries of some census tracts as part of the 2010 Census. Specifically, three types of entities must file this form:
BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens and Gerry Duffy. APRIL 1: FCC FORM 499-A, TELECOMMUNICATIONS REPORTING WORKSHEET. This form must be filed by all contributors to the Universal Service Fund (USF) sup-port mechanisms, the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund, the cost recovery mechanism for the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA), and the shared costs of local number portability (LNP). Contributors include every telecommunications carrier that provides interstate, intrastate, and international telecommunications, and certain other entities that provide interstate telecommunications for a fee. Even common carriers that qualify for the de minimis ex-emption must file Form 499-A. Entities whose universal service contributions will be less than $10,000 qualify for the de minimis exemption. De minimis entities do not have to file the quarterly report (FCC Form 499-Q), which was due February 1, and will again be due May 1. Form 499-Q relates to universal and LNP mechanisms. Form 499-A relates to all of these mechanisms and, hence, applies to all providers of interstate, intrastate, and international telecommunications services. Form 499-A contains revenue information for January 1 through December 31 of the prior calendar year. And Form 499-Q contains revenue information from the prior quarter plus projections for the next quarter. (Note: the revised 499-A and 499-Q forms are now available.) Block 2-B of the Form 499-A requires each carrier to designate an agent in the District of Columbia upon whom all notices, process, orders, and decisions by the FCC may be served on behalf of that carrier in proceedings before the Commission. Carriers receiving this newsletter may specify our law firm as their D.C. agent for service of process using the information in our masthead. There is no charge for this service. BloostonLaw Contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, Ben Dickens, and Gerry Duffy. APRIL 1: ANNUAL ACCESS TO ADVANCED SERVICES CERTIFICATION. All providers of telecommunications services and telecommunications carriers subject to Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act are required to file with the FCC an annual certification that (1) states the company has procedures in place to meet the recordkeeping requirements of Part 14 of the Rules; (2) states that the company has in fact kept records for the previous calendar year; (3) contains contact information for the individual or individuals handling customer complaints under Part 14; (4) contains contact information for the company’s designated agent; and (5) is supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury signed by an officer of the company. BloostonLaw Contacts: Gerry Duffy, Mary Sisak, Sal Taillefer. Calendar At-a-GlanceFebruary March April
|
|
|||||||
Current member or former member of these organizations.
|
| THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK |
 |
| VIDEO OF THE WEEK |
|
| Source: | YouTube |
|
| Home Page | Directory | Consulting | Newsletters | Free Subscription | Products | Reference | Glossary | Send e-mail |
