| FRIDAY - JUNE 27, 2008 - ISSUE NO. 317 - PAGE TWO |
Motorola gets official with GPS-packing MING A1600, A1800 by Donald Melanson, posted Jun 24th 2008 at 12:31PM
|
Motorola hasn't exactly been doing the best job keeping these two handsets under wraps, but it now looks like it can now rest a bit easier and let the details fly, as it's finally gotten official with both the MING A1600 and MING A1800. As we've seen, the two handsets are nearly identical, with each packing a 2.4-inch QVGA touchscreen, a 3-megapixel camera, integrated Bluetooth, a microSD card slot, an FM radio and, of particular note, built-in GPS (but no WiFi, as previously rumored). The MING A1800, however, adds two SIM card slots, which will let you hop between GSM and CDMA networks with relative ease. Still no official word on pricing or availability, unfortunately, but we'd expect those details to be making themselves known soon enough. | Source: | Engadget |
| UNITED COMMUNICATIONS |
| NRG™ batteries by Motorola* |
| ||||||||||||||
ICOM 
June 26, 2008 08:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time Unlimited Wireless Carrier MetroPCS Announces Launch of MetroFlash™ Consumers Can Now Activate Their Existing CDMA Handsets on MetroPCS’ Network, Offering the Freedom to Enjoy the Nation’s Most Affordable and Flexible Wireless Service DALLAS—(BUSINESS WIRE)—MetroPCS Communications, Inc. (NYSE: PCS), the nation’s leading provider of unlimited, flat-rate wireless communications service, announces the launch of MetroFlash™, allowing consumers to bring their compatible CDMA handsets to be used on MetroPCS’ network. Coupled with its low cost, flat-rate unlimited wireless service, MetroPCS is further broadening consumers’ freedom to enjoy more cost efficient, flexible wireless options. MetroFlash™ will eliminate for many consumers the requirement of having to purchase a new handset when signing up for MetroPCS service. “Offering consumers the ability to join MetroPCS with their existing handset makes switching carriers easier – and more cost efficient – than ever,” said Tom Keys, Chief Operating Officer of MetroPCS. “Not since number portability have consumers been offered such a convenient option in switching service providers. With the rising cost of gas and food, consumers are looking for ways to reduce expenses and the launch of MetroFlash™, along with our flat-rate, unlimited low cost service plans, makes MetroPCS a more affordable wireless option.” Customers using MetroFlash™ will receive a free month of service, plus unlimited local, long distance, voicemail and text messaging for $40 a month and pay a $30 fee. The service will be available at all MetroPCS company owned stores and select authorized dealers in all MetroPCS markets, excluding Las Vegas and Shreveport/Bossier City. Consumers can go to www.metropcs.com or a MetroPCS company owned store to determine if their phone is compatible with MetroFlash™. MetroPCS’ unlimited, flat-rate wireless, no signed contract plans range from $30 to $50 per month and allow subscribers to talk all they want, 24-hours-a-day, seven days a week. Unlike most carriers, MetroPCS does not require a signed contract, which means that consumers can activate service without going through a credit check or paying a deposit. Many of the plans include unlimited features such as voicemail, caller ID, call waiting, three-way calling, text and picture messaging, push e-mail, mobile Internet browsing, mobile instant messaging, and Metro411, a voice-activated, premium directory assistance service. Additionally, MetroPCS offers unlimited family plans for an affordable low price. With approximately 4.4 million subscribers nationwide, continued consumer demand for MetroPCS’ affordable, flexible, predictable, unlimited, no signed contract, flat-rate wireless service has been the driving factor behind the company’s expansion across the country. Consumers can visit any of MetroPCS’ authorized dealer locations and company-owned retail locations or visit MetroPCS’ web site at www.metropcs.com to sign up for service plans, and choose from a lineup of wireless phones from the top handset manufacturers. About MetroPCS Communications, Inc. Dallas-based MetroPCS Communications, Inc. (NYSE: PCS) is a provider of unlimited wireless communications service for a flat-rate with no signed contract. MetroPCS owns or has access to licenses covering a population of approximately 149 million people in 14 of the top 25 largest metropolitan areas in the United States, including New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Miami, Orlando, Sarasota, Tampa, Atlanta, Dallas, Detroit, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento. As of March 31, 2008, MetroPCS has approximately 4.4 million subscribers and offers service in the Miami, Orlando, Sarasota, Tampa, Atlanta, Dallas, Shreveport – Bossier City, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento and Las Vegas metropolitan areas. For more information please visit www.metropcs.com.
|
| Source: | BusinessWire |
Note: The above was sent in by Rex Lee, a well-known manager in this industry, and a frequent contributor to this newsletter. Rex is now the VP/GM at Houdinisoft—they supply the software application that is the unlocking tool for CDMA phones. It can unlock over 220-plus-models of cell phones. This is going to impact the industry in that millions of phones can be recycled back into the market place without the handsets being crushed and sent to land fills plus it will give the consumer more choices and free them to pick their carrier. You an e-mail Rex by clicking on his name (above). Please tell him you saw this here in The Wireless Messaging Newsletter. See: www.keepmyphone.com and www.Houdinisoft.com for more information. |
CLICK HERE 
Commentary: Investors don't buy Motorola revival plan Bolaji Ojo Motorola Inc. executives are in a bind. For more than one year, a major investor urged the company to spin off or sell its wireless handset unit to raise its depressed stock price. The management fought this until relenting earlier this year and Motorola's shares finally rebounded a bit. The stock price is headed down again, buffeted by negative investor sentiments and a rash of downgrades by disillusioned financial analysts who argue Motorola is losing further market share as growth in the mobile handset industry drops towards the single digit level from multi-year double-digit expansion. Corporate icons don't last forever. AT&T Inc. is today a mere shadow of the massive company that once ruled the U.S. telecommunications market decades ago and even its most notable offspring, Lucent Technologies, has been gobbled up by France-based Alcatel. Even Microsoft Inc. and Yahoo Inc., two of America's more recent players in the hgh-tech world, are struggling for survival and market dominance against Google Inc., a more nimble rival. Yahoo is in a more desperate situation than Microsoft and how it copes with its current problems would be the stuff of business school discussions years from now. Motorola, though, is in a different category than Microsoft or even Yahoo. Founded in 1928, Motorola has been a proud fixture in America's technological development for 80 years now. The company's patent roll is enormous and its radio communications inventions, including the car radio and the police radio receiver, helped establish America's legend as the land of technological marvels. Another major Motorola invention, the two-way portable radio or the walkie-talkie—originally dubbed the Handie-Talkie—was a vital tool in the hands of Allied soldiers during the Second World War. The impressive list of Motorola inventions and other outstanding products goes on. In fact, Motorola introduced the first commercially available cellular phone, the DynaTAC to consumers in 1984. Motorola gave Americans enough good reasons to pound their chest in international technology conferences. That American icon is slowly shredding to bits with no signs the management knows how to fix whatever the problems might be. The company is now a distant No. 4 in the wireless handset market and its only a matter of time before Apple overtakes it in that segment. This is having a crushing impact on Motorola's stock valuation and investor impression of the company is at its lowest level in decades. When the Galvin Manufacturing Corp.—Motorola's predecessor company until a name change in 1947—had its initial public offering in 1943, the stock was priced at $8.50 and quickly became a part of many investors' portfolio. On Tuesday, (June 24), though, Motorola's share price fell to $7.35, its lowest level in five years and 87 percent below the all-time high. Apple is today valued at about $153 billion while Motorola with a bigger annual revenue base of $36.7 billion compared with Apple's $24 billion has a market value of approximately $17 billion. Motorola's management needs to figure out quickly what's wrong with this company and do whatever they can to revive it. Whatever they are doing now isn't working. This is what investors are saying and it's about time somebody listened to them. |
| Source: | EE Times |
|
NEWS FLASH — SATELLITE FAILURES
DON’T WAIT FOR THE NEXT SATELLITE OUTAGE Allow us to uplink your paging data to two separate satellites for complete redundancy! CVC owns and operates two separate earth stations and specializes in uplink services for paging carriers. Join our list of satisfied uplink customers.
For inquires please call or e-mail Stephan Suker at 800-696-6474 or steves@cvcpaging.com
|
Want to help the newsletter? Become a SPONSOR
For more details, and pricing on the various advertising options please click here
|
American Airlines to test broadband connectivity on Wednesday flights East Bay Business Times The Dallas Morning News reports that American Airlines passengers traveling between New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport and Los Angeles Wednesday will have the opportunity to browse the Internet along the way in a dress rehearsal for inflight broadband provided by American and technology provider Aircell LLC. A broader customer trial on flights between New York and San Francisco, and New York and Miami is expected to begin in the next couple of weeks and the carrier is considering expanding to other fleet types. Aircell's "Gogo" service will be free on Wednesday, but will cost $12.95 for flights longer than three hours, and $9.95 for shorter ones once the system goes live. Some sites will be accessible for free, including American Airline's Web site, Frommer's online travel guides and some news headlines. Users will be able to download video and e-mail, use instant messaging and access secure networks through the system using laptops or handheld wireless-enabled devices. Dallas Business Journal |
| Source: | East Bay BusinessTimes |
Intelligent Solutions for Paging & Wireless Data WiPath manufactures a wide range of highly unique and innovative hardware and software solutions in paging and mobile data for:
I am an authorized Manufacturer Representative for WiPath Communications. Please contact me directly for any additional information. |
SEE WEB FOR COMPLETE LIST:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ask for Special Newsletter Pricing. Please call: 800-222-6075 ext. 312 for pricing.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ham radio people always at the ready Friday, June 27, 2008 WORCESTER — Most people today communicate with distant friends and family by telephone or through the Internet, but members of the Worcester Emergency Communications Team swear by the airwaves. “We rely on radio signals, so when cell phones, landlines and cable fail, we can stick a wire up in a tree and prevail,” said Mark Rubin, director of the Worcester Emergency Communications Team. Members of WECT are amateur radio operators, known as “hams,” who use radios to communicate to people next door or across the world. Because ham radio signals continue through disasters, they have always been closely associated with emergency assistance. The voluntary WECT was created by Mr. Rubin after the need arose for help after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. He created the group to coordinate the information and communication flow through radio during crises. The team’s 80 members hail from Worcester and surrounding towns, Mr. Rubin said. The group has helped relief efforts after disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, as well as passing along information about marathons and parades. “There are so many facets to ham radio, so many things to do,” Mr. Rubin said. Gil Hayes, a team leader in the WECT, said he talks to friends through ham radio daily. “A lot of people get on the air during morning and evening commutes. I love the talking, you can use the technology to form intimate relationships with people all over the country,” Mr. Hayes said. Mr. Hayes said he enjoys socializing, but he is also drawn to technological challenges and helping the community. Although most of the day-to-day communication dwells on friendly chatter, the hobby is rooted in emergency assistance. “Amateur radio is one of a very few hobbies that gives back to the general public,” Mr. Rubin said. The Federal Communications Commission requires hams to pass a test and get a license before going on the air. There are strict rules about how to talk through the radio and the pastime requires knowledge of handling equipment. “There is nothing amateur about amateur radio other than that we’re not paid,” Mr. Rubin said. This weekend WECT will participate in the National Annual Amateur Radio Field Day to test users’ skills as well as put on a public display. Mr. Rubin said it is a chance to remind local and state officials they exist. “When officials are reminded of how we help the public, they are always pleased, but they can never get over the fact that we are free,” Mr. Rubin said. The Field Day will be held at Worcester Emergency Operation Center at 50 Skyline Drive from 2 to 6 p.m. tomorrow. |
| Source: | Telegram.com NEWS |
|
Wireless Communication Solutions
|
| BLOOSTON LAW |
BloostonLaw Telecom Update Published by the Law Offices of Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Prendergast, LLP [Selected portions reproduced here with the firm's permission.]
LEGISLATIVE ALERT: Rep. Joe Barton has introduced H.R.6356, the Universal Service Reform, Accountability, and Efficiency Act of 2008, which calls for a permanent cap on the entire Universal Service Fund and requires the FCC to institute a reverse auction program to implement support from the USF. In light of the significant issues this legislation raises for our rural telephone clients, we will be circulating a Call to Action soliciting comments to our clients’ representatives in Congress. FCC Proposes Service Rules For H Block, AWS-3 Band Free, Wireless Broadband Internet Service Proposed For 2155-2180 MHz Spectrum The FCC late last week released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that proposes public access to free, nationwide, high-speed wireless broadband Internet services using a portion of the winning bidder’s network in the 2.1 GHz Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) spectrum. The FNPRM seeks comment on proposed rules for the AWS spectrum in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands. Our rural telco and small business clients will want to consider participating in comments advocating fair auction rules for rural communities, including (1) small licensing areas, and (2) reasonable build-out requirements for sparsely populated areas. Comments in this WT Docket No. 07-195 proceeding are due July 9, and replies are due July 16. In 2004, the FCC sought comment on service rules for the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2), and in 2007, the FCC sought comment on service rules for the 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3). To supplement the comments received in response to these earlier notices, the instant FNPRM requests comment on specific service rules for these spectrum bands. Regarding the 2155-2180 MHz band, the Further Notice proposes combining the 2155-2175 MHz band with the 2175-2180 MHz band to create a 25 megahertz block of spectrum and a single nationwide license for the 2155- 2180 MHz band. This larger block size may allow the AWS-3 licensee to make more robust use of the spectrum while operating at a stricter out-of-band emission limit. Alternatively, another proposed option would be to retain the 2155-2175 MHz AWS-3 block and allow the licensee to operate with a more traditional out-of-band emission limit. The Further Notice also proposes requiring the licensee for the 2155-2180 MHz spectrum to provide – using up to 25 percent of its wireless network capacity – free, two-way broadband Internet service at engineered data rates of at least 768 kbps downstream. Additional obligations associated with the licensee’s free broadband service would include a requirement to provide a network-based filtering mechanism for the free Internet service in order to protect children and families, and a requirement that the network allow for the use of open devices. The build-out requirements for the licensee, as proposed, would be to provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 50 percent of the total U.S. population within four years and to at least 95 percent of the U.S. population by the end of the 10-year license term. The FNPRM also proposes permitting both downlink and uplink transmissions throughout the entire 2155-2180 MHz band. The Further Notice also proposes service rules for the AWS spectrum in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz (H Block). These proposed rules include licensing the H Block on a Basic Trading Area (BTA) basis for 10- year license terms, and requiring licensees to provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 35 percent of the population in each licensed area within four years and at least 70 percent of the population in each licensed area by the end of the license term. Under the technical rules proposed, base and fixed transmissions would be prohibited in the 1915-1920 MHz band, and mobile transmissions would be prohibited in the 1995-2000 MHz band. AWS-3 Band: In sum, the FCC proposes to adopt application, licensing, operating, and technical rules for the 2155-2180 MHz band (AWS-3 band), including rules that would:
H Block: The FCC also proposes to adopt application, licensing, operating, and technical rules for the 1915- 1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands (H Block), including rules that would:
The FCC seeks comment on these proposed rules for the AWS-3 band and the H Block. The Commission notes that combining the 2155-2175 MHz band with the 2175-2180 MHz band may allow an AWS-3 licensee to make more robust use of this spectrum block while meeting a stricter OOBE limit than traditionally applied in bands designated for flexible use, such as the AWS-1 and 700 MHz bands. To the extent that commenters do not support combining the 2155-2175 MHz band with the 2175-2180 MHz band, they should indicate whether, in the alternative, a more traditional OOBE limit of 43+10log(P) dB would be appropriate for the 2155-2175 MHz band. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, Cary Mitchell, and Bob Jackson. FCC Grants Customer Retention Marketing Complaint Against Verizon Bureau’s Recommended Decision Rejected The FCC has rejected the Enforcement Bureau’s April 11 Recommended Decision denying in part a customer retention marketing complaint filed against Verizon by Bright House Networks, Comcast, and Time Warner (BloostonLaw Telecom Update, April 23). The FCC concluded that Verizon is violating section 222(b) of the Communications Act by using, for customer retention marketing purposes, proprietary information of other carriers that it receives in the local number porting process, and it ordered Verizon immediately to cease and desist from such unlawful conduct. The FCC said that beginning around the summer of 2007, Verizon started a program of retention marketing directed specifically at retail customers who are in the midst of the carrier-changing/number-porting process just described. The program’s first step is generating — on a frequent, if not daily, basis — a marketing “lead list” of Verizon customers to be contacted by Verizon that is based on Local Service Requests (LSRs). To generate the lead list, Verizon begins with the universe of customers for whom there are retail-service disconnect orders pending, including disconnect orders that were prompted by the submission of an LSR. Verizon then eliminates from the lead list all those customers who are not switching their phone service and porting their telephone numbers from Verizon to a facilities-based service provider, such as Complainants. Put differently, Verizon keeps on the lead list only those customers who are switching their phone service and porting their telephone numbers from Verizon to a facilities-based service provider, such as Complainants. Verizon is able to carry out this sifting because the disconnect orders stemming from the Competitive Carriers’ LSRs differ from all other disconnect orders. Specifically, disconnect orders stemming from the Competitive Carriers’ LSRs contain “additional entries that are required to facilitate the actual porting of the telephone number to the new provider.” Upon completion of the lead list, Verizon immediately — sometimes within 24 hours of receiving the LSR — contacts customers on the lead list, by express mail, e-mail, and/or automated telephone message. Those contacts encourage customers to remain with Verizon, offering price incentives such as discounts and American Express reward cards. Verizon conducts this marketing while the number-porting request is still pending, i.e., before the new provider (such as Complainants) has established service to the customer. If Verizon is successful in persuading a customer to cancel his or her order with the new service provider, Verizon cancels the internal service order relating to the port request, and Verizon’s systems issue a “jeopardy notice” to the provider that submitted the port request. Verizon also puts the new provider’s port request “into conflict” by sending a conflict code to the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC). That conflict code cannot be overridden by the new provider. If the new service provider persuades the customer to switch after all, it can either seek resolution of the conflict code or, what is much more common, submit a new LSR. Section 222 Analysis: In its legal analysis, the Commission said it has already found that advance notice of a carrier change that one carrier is required to submit to another is carrier “proprietary information” under section 222(b). These rulings stem from the inherently sensitive nature of the information itself and from a concern that carriers not unfairly exploit such information received in advance through necessary carrier-to-carrier interactions. As the Commission has observed, “competition is harmed if any carrier uses carrier-to-carrier information . . . to trigger retention marketing campaigns, and [we] consequently prohibit such actions accordingly.” Therefore, under Commission precedent, the carrier change information that the Competitive Carriers must submit to Verizon in the LSRs is plainly “proprietary” within the meaning of section 222(b). In sum, when a Competitive Carrier submits an LSR to Verizon, Verizon receives that LSR “for purposes of providing any telecommunications service” within the meaning of section 222(b). That conclusion, combined with the conclusion reached above about the LSR’s proprietary nature, means that section 222(b) forbids Verizon from using the information in the LSR for its own marketing efforts. Moreover, even if Verizon were correct that section 222(b) applies only when the carrier that receives proprietary information uses it for the purpose of providing telecommunications service, the FCC would find that Verizon’s retention marketing practices violate the statute because Verizon’s provision of LNP constitutes a telecommunications service. As Commissioner Robert McDowell noted in his separate statement: “Carriers are free to initiate customer retention marketing campaigns before a consumer gives the order to switch from his or her current phone service provider to a new provider. Under the law, carriers are also permitted to launch ‘win-back’ campaigns after consumers have switched. Today’s action underscores long-held Commission policy that using proprietary customer information for marketing efforts cannot take place during the window of time when a customer’s phone number is being switched to a new provider.” In sum, based on the particular facts in this record regarding the telecommunications provided to Comcast and Bright House by their affiliated Competitive Carriers, the FCC concludes that Comcast and Bright House have shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Competitive Carriers are telecommunications carriers for purposes of section 222(b) of the Act and provide “telecommunications services” to Comcast and Bright House within the meaning of section 222(b) of the Act. The Commission stresses, however, that its holding is limited to the particular facts and the particular statutory provision at issue in this case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has made clear that an agency may interpret an ambiguous term “differently in two separate sections of a statute which have different purposes.” Here, section 222(b) has a different purpose – privacy protection – than many other provisions of the Communications Act, and the Commission believes that this purpose argues for a broad reading of the provision. As a result, this decision holding the Competitive Carriers to be “telecommunications carriers” for purposes of section 222(b) does not mean that they are necessarily “telecommunications carriers” for purposes of all other provisions of the Act. The Commission said it leaves those determinations for another day. While the Act does provide a definition of the term “telecommunications carrier,” “the presence of a definition does not necessarily make the meaning clear. A definition only pushes the problem back to the meaning of the defining terms.” Therefore, the Commission said it believes that it may be permissible to interpret an ambiguous but defined term differently in different statutory provisions that serve distinct purposes. The Commission also said it would take the Bureau‘s recommendation to launch a rulemaking on broad customer retention marketing practices under advisement. The vote on the item was 4-1, with FCC Chairman Kevin Martin dissenting. He said he feared that the decision “will have a negative impact on rural carriers and customers in rural America. Today’s action rests in part on a questionable conclusion that Comcast’s and Bright House’s affiliates are ‘telecommunications carriers.’ This finding affords the affiliates the privileges of a ‘telecommunications carrier,’ including the right to interconnection, even though there is scant evidence that the affiliates have ever offered telecommunications to the public and no evidence that they have provided telecommunications to any entity other than Bright House and Comcast. This will bind our hands and have far-reaching consequences, particularly for small rural local exchange carriers around the country, such as Vermont Telephone Company, who may be forced to interconnect with similar entities that have no intention of providing telecommunications to the public or assuming the obligations of a ‘telecommunications carrier.’ For example, will such entities assume the obligations of ‘telecommunications carriers,’ such as the disabilities access requirements of section 255, the slamming requirements of section 258, and the CALEA requirements?” In a separate statement, Commissioner Michael Copps, who supported the decision, said: “the real villain here is not the decision we reach today. It is the fact that this basic statutory question has not yet been decided, even years after it first became clear that the Commission needed to do so in order to dispel the unwelcome uncertainty that presently infects this set of issues. This is most decidedly not a situation of my choosing. Indeed, as I have stated on countless occasions over the past few years, we should have dispelled this regulatory fog years ago—when broadband and VoIP were still emerging technologies and not the mainstream offerings they are today—through an open, general proceeding that solicits comment from the public as well as all affected industries and stakeholders.” BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak.
HOUSE PASSES FISA BILL; CARRIERS MAY GET IMMUNITY FROM SURVEILLANCE LAWSUITS: Last Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 6304, the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which could grant large wireless carriers immunity from numerous lawsuits stemming from government-ordered “warrantless wiretaps.” The measure, which is expected to be voted on by the Senate this week, would require federal courts to dismiss surveillance lawsuits against the carriers if the U.S. attorney general certifies their cooperation — between Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 17, 2007 — was based on written assurances that their activities were authorized by the president and determined to be lawful. As noted by RCR, the Bush administration secretly launched the warrantless wiretap program shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but its existence surfaced publicly in 2005. Class-action lawsuits against top telecom companies and congressional hearings subsequently followed. The FISA bill passed the House by a vote of 293-129, but it attracted criticism from House Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.). “The immunity provision contained in this bill purporting to allow for judicial review to determine whether immunity is appropriate is a sham,” Dingell said. “As drafted, courts will have no real discretion and will be forced to grant immunity so long as the government claims its actions were legal. However, the court is under no obligation to investigate whether the government’s claims are true. Anyone following the headlines recently, who has read about the recent Supreme Court decision overturning the administration’s argument that it has the authority to detain people indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay, or about the hearings held by Senator Carl Levin and the Senate Armed Services Committee uncovering evidence that top civilian leadership at the Department of Defense authored memos arguing it was legal for the military to torture detainees, should be extremely wary of trusting President Bush to decide whether or not it is legal to spy on Americans.” BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and John Prendergast. FCC EXTENDS DEADLINE TO JULY 26 FOR SPRINT TO VACATE 800 MHz MID-BAND: The FCC has waived for 30 days, until July 26, the deadline by which Sprint Nextel is required to vacate its spectrum holdings in the 800 MHz Interleaved Band (809-815/854-860 MHz), Expansion Band (815-816/860-861 MHz), and Guard Band (816-817/861-862 MHz)—collectively known as the “Mid-Band.” The FCC said this will provide time to consider a Petition for Relief that Sprint filed on June 17. In the 800 MHz Report and Order, the Commission ordered rebanding of the 800 MHz band to resolve interference between commercial and public safety systems in the band. As one element of rebanding, the Commission required Sprint to vacate all of its 800 MHz spectrum holdings below 817/854 MHz, including its holdings in the Mid-Band. The Commission further provided that the vacated channels in the Interleaved Band would be made exclusively available for licensing to public safety for three years after the completion of rebanding in each region, and would be exclusively available to public safety and critical infrastructure industries for the following two years. The vacated channels in the Expansion Band and Guard Band would be available for licensing under their pre-rebanding pool categories. In the 800 MHz Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission affirmed that Sprint is required to vacate the Mid- Band in non-border areas by the end of the 36-month rebanding transition period, i.e., by June 26, 2008, regardless of whether other elements of the rebanding transition are complete. Sprint appealed the 800 MHz 3rd MO&O to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 0f Columbia Circuit, contending that it is not required to vacate the Mid-Band in any National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) region until all licensees in the region have completed rebanding, even if the completion of rebanding takes longer than 36 months. On May 2, 2008, the Court upheld the Commission’s decision in full. Consequently, Sprint is legally obligated to vacate the Mid-Band on June 26, 2008 unless the Commission finds good cause to modify or waive the requirement. On June 17, 2008, Sprint filed a Petition for Relief requesting that the Commission authorize it to clear its spectrum holdings in the Mid-Band in stages based on the region-by-region progress made by public safety licensees in retuning their systems to the new NPSPAC block. On its own motion, the FCC waived the deadline by which Sprint must vacate the Mid-Band for a period of 30 days (i.e., until July 26, 2008). BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, and Richard Rubino. Private Users Update
FCC Seeks Comment On Assessment and Collection Of FY 2008 Regulatory Fees The FCC has proposed collecting $312,000,000 in regulatory fees for fiscal year (FY) 2008. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Order issued last week, the Commission seeks comment on the development of FY 2008 regulatory fees collected pursuant to Section 9 of the Communications Act. It intends to collect these fees during the August-September 2008 time frame. The FCC’s proposal covers a variety of issues, including: (a) for CMRS Messaging – whether to change the fee from $0.08 per subscriber unit; (b) improvement of the subscriber count methodology for services subject to assessment letters; (c) whether the FCC should continue sending e-mail notifications of the amounts due to CATV operators; (d) the process for notifying licensees about changes in the annual Schedule of Regulatory Fees, including any improvements that can be made to the process; (e) the most effective way to disseminate regulatory fee assessments and bills, e.g., through surface mail, email, list server using Listserv, online website, or some other mechanism; (f) the fee payment process, including how the agency’s online regulatory fee filing system (Fee Filer) can be enhanced; (g) the timing of fee payments, including whether the FCC should alter the timing of the existing regulatory fee payment window (which is generally August – September); and (h) the timing of fee assessments and pre-bills. For FY 2008, the FCC is proposing to use the same basic methodology it adopted for the collection of last year’s regulatory fees. Each fiscal year, the Commission proportionally allocates to fee categories the total amount that must be collected through its regulatory fees. Consistent with past practice, the FCC has proposed to divide the FY 2008 payment amount by the number of payment units in each fee category to calculate the unit fee. For cases involving small fees, the FCC proposes to divide the resulting unit fee by the term of the license. As in prior years, these fees would be rounded consistent with the requirements of the Act. The FCC seeks comment on these proposals. CMRS Messaging Services: This category includes all narrowband services. Since FY 2002, the FCC has maintained the CMRS Messaging Service regulatory fee at the rate that was first established in FY 2002 (i.e., $0.08 per subscriber unit), noting that the subscriber base in this industry has declined significantly. The FCC found that maintaining the CMRS Messaging regulatory fee rate at $0.08 per subscriber unit, rather than allowing it to increase, was the appropriate level of relief to be afforded to the messaging industry. For FY 2008, the FCC proposes to maintain the messaging service regulatory fee at $0.08 per subscriber unit, and seeks comment on this proposal. Commenters suggesting a different approach, i.e., a proposal other than keeping the fee at $0.08 per subscriber unit, should provide industry data to support their position. New Lock Box Bank: Because of a change in the FCC’s lockbox bank, instructions for making payment of fees by check and electronic wire transfer will differ from prior years. Assessment Letters: Like last year, the FCC proposes to mail assessment letters to Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers (e.g., cellular, SMR and PCS carriers) using data from the Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) report that is based on “assigned” number counts that have been adjusted for porting to net Type 0 ports (“in” and “out”). This letter will include a listing of the carrier’s Operating Company Numbers (OCNs) upon which the assessment is based. Consistent with existing practice, the letters will not include OCNs with their respective assigned number counts, but rather, an aggregate total of assigned numbers for each carrier. The FCC also proposes to continue the procedure of giving entities an opportunity to revise their subscriber counts by sending two rounds of assessment letters – an initial assessment and a final assessment letter. The FCC seeks comment on this proposal. Under its proposed procedure for FY 2008, if the number of subscribers on the initial assessment letter differs from the subscriber count the service provider provided on its NRUF form, the carrier will be given an opportunity to correct its subscriber count by returning the assessment letter or by contacting the Commission and stating a reason for the change, such as the purchase or the sale of a subsidiary. If no response or correction to its initial assessment letter is received, the FCC would then expect the fee payment to be based on the number of subscribers listed on the initial assessment. Otherwise, the FCC would the responses to initial assessment letters and determine whether a change in the number of subscribers is warranted before issuing the final assessment letter.. The FCC is seeking comment on its current procedures of assessing CMRS subscriber counts (for NRUF filers) and other ways it could improve the process. The FCC recognizes that some carriers may not be sent a letter of assessment because they had not filed the NRUF form. The FCC proposes that these carriers compute their fee payment using the standard methodology that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services (e.g., compute their subscriber counts as of December 31, 2007), and submit their payment using an FCC Form 159. The Commission may audit the number of subscribers for which regulatory fees are paid, whether a carrier receives an assessment letter or computes the subscriber count itself. In the event that the Commission determines that the number of subscribers is inaccurate or that an insufficient reason is given for making a correction on the initial assessment letter, the Commission will assess the carrier for the difference between what was paid and what should have been paid. The FCC, therefore, proposes to (1) obtain the subscriber count from NRUF data based on “assigned” number counts that have been adjusted for porting to net Type 0 ports (“in” and “out”); (2) provide carriers with an opportunity to revise their subscriber counts at the time when the initial assessment letter is mailed; and (3) require carriers to confirm their subscriber counts at the aggregate level using data in the NRUF report. Cable Television Operators: The FCC proposes to continue to permit cable television operators to base their regulatory fee payment on their company’s aggregate year-end subscriber count, rather than requiring them to sub-report subscriber counts on a per community unit identifier (CUID) basis. The FCC said this practice has worked well for the Commission the past three fiscal years and has eased administrative burdens for the cable television industry. Beginning in FY 2006, the FCC sent an electronic message to e-mail addresses populated in the Media Bureau’s Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) to notify them of the amount and due date of regulatory fees for basic cable television subscribers. The FCC proposes to continue this effort for FY 2008, but it is not sure if this notification practice is effective. The FCC proposes to continue this practice of sending electronic e-mail notification to cable operators. CMRS Call Signs: In FY 2006, The FCC streamlined the CMRS payment process by eliminating the requirement for CMRS providers to identify their individual calls signs when making their regulatory fee payment. Instead, the Commission required CMRS providers to pay their regulatory fees only at the aggregate subscriber level without having to identify their various call signs. The FCC proposes to continue this practice in FY 2008 and seeks comment on this proposal. In addition, to lessen the administrative burden on licensees, FCC proposed in FY 2007 to consolidate the CMRS cellular and CMRS mobile fee categories into one fee category and as one fee code, thereby eliminating the requirement for CMRS providers to separate their subscriber counts into CMRS cellular and CMRS mobile fee categories during the regulatory fee payment process. This consolidation of fee categories enabled the Commission to process payments more quickly and accurately. For FY 2008, the FCC proposes to continue this practice of combining the CMRS cellular and CMRS mobile fee categories into one regulatory fee category. Order: Last year, the FCC sought comment on the implementation of a new regulatory fee structure for licensees in the Broadband Radio Service (BRS). The proposal used a weighted average approach based on the FCC’s 2006 Decision to establish three tiers, to be based on the BTA ranking of the license and the per MHz fee. BloostonLaw opposed the FCC’s proposal because there was insufficient data in the record to conclude that rural operators would benefit from the new fee calculation. BloostonLaw also stated that the fee should be based upon the population within the licensee’s geographic service area. Based upon BloostonLaw’s and others comments, the FCC has concluded that it will continue the current practice of charging a flat fee per license until the BRS/EBS transition to the new band plan is completed. The comment cycle in this MD Docket No. 08-65 proceeding closed June 6, but there is still an opportunity for ex parte submissions. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, Gerry Duffy, and Richard Rubino. FCC Says It Will Set Date For Transition To 6.25 kHz Narrowband Technology The FCC has clarified that it will eventually release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding a specific time line for private land mobile radio (PLMR) licensees in the 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz bands to transition to 6.25 kHz technology, and that language in the earlier Third Report and Order encouraging licensees to consider migrating directly to 6.25 kHz technology was not intended to dissuade migration to 12.5 kHz technology by licensees that have already begun the process. Earlier in this proceeding, the Commission took the following actions in order to bring about a timely transition to narrowband technology: (1) set January 1, 2013, as the deadline for Industrial/Business and Public Safety Radio Pool licensees in the 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz bands to either migrate to 12.5 kHz technology, or utilize a technology that achieves equivalent efficiency; (2) prohibited any applications for new systems using 25 kHz channels, or modification applications that expand the authorized contour of an existing 25 kHz station, effective January 1, 2011; (3) prohibited the manufacture and importation of any 150-174 MHz or 421-512 MHz band equipment capable of operating with only one voice path per 25 kHz of spectrum, i.e., equipment that includes a 25 kHz mode, beginning January 1, 2011; and (4) prohibited the certification of any equipment that includes a 25 kHz mode beginning January 1, 2011. In the Third Report and Order, however, the Commission declined to establish a fixed date for users to transition to 6.25 kHz technology, because it agreed with the majority of commenters “that adopting such a measure would be premature, and . . . more time is warranted to allow further development and field testing of the 6.25 kHz [interoperability] standard.” The Commission nonetheless reiterated that 12.5 kHz technology is a transitional step in the eventual migration of PLMR systems to 6.25 kHz technology. Two petitions were filed in response to the Third Report and Order. First, Kenwood USA Corporation, Communications Sector requested clarification of the Commission’s statement urging licensees to consider migrating directly to 6.25 kHz technology was not intended to delay or discourage migration to 12.5 kHz technology. It reports that the Third Report and Order has caused end-users, including entities that already were in the process of converting to 12.5 kHz technology in order to comply with the 2013 deadline, to adopt a “wait and see” approach rather than invest in 12.5 kHz equipment that may be rendered obsolete before the end of its useful life. The City of New York echoed Kenwood’s concern that an early date for 6.25 kHz migration would result in stranded investment, and raise other concerns. New York urged the Commission to release an NPRM prior to adoption of a 6.25 kHz technology transition date, in order to allow licensees an opportunity to plan and implement a reasoned migration path. The commenters to New York’s petition unanimously support this request. As an initial matter, the FCC said it is cognizant of the concerns raised by New York and commenters supporting New York’s petition that their 12.5 kHz equipment not be rendered obsolete prematurely. Accordingly, it clarified that it intends to provide notice and seek comment prior to adopting final rules establishing a 6.25 kHz migration schedule, and thus grant New York’s petition to that extent. At that time, interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on such a proposal. The FCC said it is also aware that many licensees of larger, more complicated systems have already commenced the transition to 12.5 kHz technology in order to comply with the 2013 deadline. It therefore clarified that the language in the Third Report and Order urging licensees to consider migrating directly to 6.25 kHz technology was not intended to dissuade migration to 12.5 kHz technology by licensees that have already begun the process. The FCC reiterated, however, that 12.5 kHz technology is a transitional step in the eventual migration of PLMR systems to 6.25 kHz technology. As the demand for scarce PLMR spectrum continues to grow, the Commission said it will closely monitor the progress made by standards-setting organizations and equipment manufacturers to develop more spectrum-efficient PLMR systems. As indicated in the Third Report and Order, when 6.25 kHz technology matures to the point that sufficient equipment is available for testing, the FCC said it will expeditiously establish a transition date for users to convert to that more spectrum-efficient technology. Consequently, licensees that may not migrate to 12.5 kHz technology until the January 1, 2013, deadline approaches should consider the feasibility of migrating directly to 6.25 kHz technology. Such a course could be more efficient and economical for licensees—and result in greater overall spectrum efficiency—than first migrating to 12.5 kHz technology by 2013, then further migrating to 6.25 kHz technology thereafter. In this Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, we address a petition for reconsideration and a request for clarification of the Third Report and Order. This item was originally scheduled for the FCC’s May 14 open meeting, but was deleted from the agenda because the Commission adopted it the day before the meeting. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, and Richard Rubino. |
This newsletter is not intended to provide legal advice. Those interested in more information should contact the firm. Source: Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy and Prendergast, LLP |
| EUROPEAN MOBILE MESSAGING ASSOCIATION |
|
CLICK HERE
|
• FIREHOUSES • SCHOOLS • PUBLIC FACILITIES • GOVERNMENT FACILITIES • EMERGENCY ROOMS WHAT DO FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES, WISPS, HAVE IN COMMON? THEY ALL USE NIGHTHAWK. Nighthawk Systems Inc. manufactures low cost and reliable remote control products for fire house alerting, volunteer alerting, activation of warning signs and sirens, and a number of applications for public safety. The Company manufactures the EA1 and the FAS-8 which have been designed specifically for these applications. Both products are paging based and will work with any public or private paging network. They are available in all VHF, UHF, and 900 MHz paging frequencies. The products can serve as the primary notification system or an excellent, low-cost backup to existing systems.
The EA1 is the solution for remotely activating public warning signage. Examples include tornado sirens, flash flood warnings, fire danger, Amber Alert, icy roads, etc. The EA1 can also send text messages to scrolling signs. This can occur in conjunction with the activation of audible alarms and visual strobes. This is ideal for public notification in buildings, schools, hotels, factories, etc. The group call feature allows for any number of signs or flashing lights to be activated at the same time over a wide geographic area. In addition, the EA1 Emergency Alert is the perfect solution for low cost yet highly effective alerting of volunteer fire fighters in their home. When activated the EA1 will emit an audible alarm and activate the power outlet on the units faceplate. A common setup is to simply place the EA1 on a table and plug a lamp into the faceplate. When paged from dispatch or any touch tone phone the EA1 will awaken the fire fighter to a lit room. As an option the EA1 can be ordered with a serial cable, allowing for attachment of a serial printer. When paged the alphanumeric message will be printed out at the same time the alarm sounds and the outlet is activated. The EA1 is an ideal complement to alphanumeric belt pagers common to volunteers.
The FAS-8 is designed for activating one or more relays in a firehouse and if desired, printing the alphanumeric message to a serial printer. For this application the FAS-8 is set to activate upon receiving the proper paging cap code sent from 911 dispatch. Up to eight different devices can be activated all with individual time functions. The most common devices to turn on include the PA amplifier, audible wake up alarm, and house lights. The most common device turned off is the stove. The FAS-8 can accept up to 8 different cap codes and have separate relay and time functions per cap code. This allows for different alerting to be accomplished at the same physical location depending upon which cap code is sent. This can be very helpful when fire crews and medical crews are housed in the same building.
Put the innovative technology of Nighthawk to work for you. For more information on any of our products or services, please contact us. Nighthawk Systems, Inc. Phone: 877-764-4484
|
| ||||||||||||
| PAGING & WIRELESS WIRELESS SPECIALISTS www.pagingplanners.com
| |||||||||||||
Advertise Here
| |||||||||||||
Complete Technical Services For The Ira Wiesenfeld, P.E.
| |||||||||||||
|
CUSTOM APPLICATIONS
http://www.outr.net/overnight_pw.htm Their latest newsletter is: "Business Development in Mobile Data" Please call me so we can discuss your need or your idea. Or contact me by e-mail for more information
| |||||||||||||
If you see someone in the field (like salespeople, technicians, and delivery people) using paper forms, their company could probably save a pile of money, and get much better timeliness, accuracy and efficiency, by using converting to Outr.Net's Wireless Forms. Custom applications for as little as $995, delivered in just a few days.Outr.Net has a web page on Wireless Forms for Timeports at:
|
| Source: | Written by Jerry Daugherty — W9FS www.w9fs.com |
| LETTERS TO THE EDITOR |
|
From: Steve Adams Brad, As Motorola dies from poor management, I wonder just how much money is Greg Brown (CEO) making? Steve Adams Subject: Re: Motorola CEO Good question Steve. Here is what I found: Gregory Q. Brown President/Director/CEO at Mr. Brown joined Motorola in 2003 and became President and Chief Executive Officer on January 1, 2008. From March 2007 through December 2007, Mr. Brown served as President and Chief Operating Officer. From January 2005 through March 2007, Mr. Brown served as Executive Vice President and President of the Networks and Enterprise business and from January 2003 through December 2004 he served as Executive Vice President and President of the Commercial Government and Industrial Solutions Sector. Prior to joining Motorola, Mr. Brown was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Micromuse, Inc., a network management software company. Before that, he was President of Ameritech Custom Business Services and Ameritech New Media, Inc. Mr. Brown serves on the Rutgers Board of Overseers and the boards of World Business Chicago, The US-China Business Council and Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Mr. Brown received a B.A. degree in Economics from Rutgers University.
[source] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From: Ralph Mazzuoccolo Good Afternoon Derek, I would like to know if anyone in your European Messaging Association has used Motorola Advisor Elite 900 Flex pagers to sell. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Ralph Mazzuoccolo |
| UNTIL NEXT WEEK |
| If you enjoyed this issue of the newsletter, please forward it to a friend or colleague. |
With best regards, 73 DE K9IQY | Brad Dye, Editor |  |  |
| Skype: braddye Telephone: 217-787-2346 E–mail: brad@braddye.com Wireless Consulting page Paging Information Home Page Marketing & Engineering Papers |  | WIRELESS  MESSAGING |
| THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK |
“To fear death, my friends, is only to think ourselves wise, without being wise: for it is to think that we know what we do not know. For anything that men can tell, death may be the greatest good that can happen to them: but they fear it as if they knew quite well that it was the greatest of evils. And what is this but that shameful ignorance of thinking that we know what we do not know?” —Socrates (Ancient Greek Philosopher, 470 BC-399 BC) |
| The local newspaper here in Springfield, Illinois costs 75¢ a copy and it NEVER mentions paging. If you receive some benefit from this publication maybe you would like to help support it financially? A donation of $25.00 would represent approximately 50¢ a copy for one year. If you are so inclined, please click on the PayPal Donate button to the left. No trees were chopped down to produce this electronic newsletter. |
 | This newsletter is brought to you by the generous support of our advertisers and the courtesy of iland Internet Solutions Corporation. For more information about the web-hosting services available from iland Internet Solutions Corporation, please click on their logo to the left. |
| THE WIRELESS MESSAGING NEWSLETTER & THE PAGING INFORMATION RESOURCE |