newsletter logo

Wireless News Aggregation

Friday — April 3, 2015 — Issue No. 651

Paging and Wireless Messaging Home Page image Newsletter Archive image Carrier Directory image Recommended Products and Services
Reference Papers Consulting Glossary of Terms Send an e-mail to Brad Dye

Dear Friends of Wireless Messaging,

Welcome back. I hope you enjoy this issue of The Wireless Messaging News.

I received an interesting message from friend, and advertiser Phil Leavitt (see LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ) about Caller ID Spoofing. Phil would like to start a discussion here about this. He is hoping that readers at the FCC will join in the discussion as well.

Following are some clips of background information from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . You can click on the link to the left for more details.

Caller ID spoofing

Caller ID spoofing is the practice of causing the telephone network to indicate to the receiver of a call that the originator of the call is a station other than the true originating station. For example, a Caller ID display might display a phone number different from that of the telephone from which the call was placed. The term is commonly used to describe situations in which the motivation is considered malicious by the speaker or writer.

Caller name display

Telephone exchange equipment manufacturers vary in their handling of caller name display. Much of the equipment manufactured for Bell System companies in the United States sends only the caller's number to the distant exchange; that switch must then use a database lookup to find the name to display with the calling number. Canadian landline exchanges often run Nortel equipment which sends the name along with the number. Mobile, CLEC, Internet or independent exchanges also vary in their handling of caller name, depending on the switching equipment manufacturer. Calls between numbers in differing country codes represent a further complication, as Caller ID often displays the local portion of the calling number without indicating a country of origin or in a format that can be mistaken for a domestic or invalid number.

This results in multiple possible outcomes:

  • The name provided by the caller (in the analog telephone adapter configuration screen for voice-over-IP users or on the web interface on a spoofing provider) is blindly passed verbatim to the called party and may be spoofed at will
  • The name is generated from a telephone company database using the spoofed Caller ID number.
  • A destination provider may display no name or just the geographic location of the provided telephone area code on caller ID ( e.g., "ARIZONA", "CALIFORNIA", "OREGON", or "ONTARIO"). This often occurs where the destination carrier is a low-cost service (such as a VoIP provider) running no database or outdated data in which the number is not found.
  • If the displayed number is in the recipient's address book, some handsets will display the name from the local address book in place of the transmitted name. Some VoIP providers use Asterisk (PBX) to provide similar functionality at the server; this may lead to multiple substitutions with priority going to the destination user's own handset as the last link in the CNAM chain.

Caller ID spoofing is generally illegal in the United States if done “with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.” The relevant federal statute, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, does make exceptions for certain law-enforcement purposes. Callers are also still allowed to preserve their anonymity by choosing to block all outgoing caller ID information on their phone lines.

Valid reasons to spoof caller ID

Some parties have maintained that there are sometimes legitimate reasons for modifying the caller ID sent with a call, but there is little consensus about many of these. Some of the arguments offered in favor of the practice follow below.

  1. Calls from a large company, especially with multiple branches, where sending the main number makes sense. For example, a hospital might have the primary number 555-1000, with perhaps 250 lines inside the main building, and another 100 at the clinic five miles away. While some of the phones will have "555-10XX" numbers, many won't have any identifiable line. Having all calls "come from" 555-1000 lets the recipients know it's a hospital call.
  2. A company with a toll-free telephone number may prefer the caller ID to display this number.
  3. A call center making calls on behalf of many clients may prefer the caller ID to display a different number for each client's calls.
  4. Commercial answering-service bureaux which forward calls back out to a subscriber's cell phone, when both parties would prefer the caller ID to display the original caller's information.
  5. Most calling-card companies display the caller ID of the calling-card user to the called party.
  6. Business owners have been known to use caller ID spoofing to display their business number on the caller ID display when calling from outside the office (for example, on a mobile phone).
  7. Phone mystery shopping is a legitimate use of caller ID spoofing. It allows mystery shoppers to appear as if they are calling from a specific geographic region or from a known customer's number (so as to avoid their being revealed as a mystery shopper).
  8. Google Voice displays its users' Google Voice number when they place calls through the service using their landline or cell phone.
  9. Gizmo5 (now defunct) sent the user's Gizmo5 SIP number as outbound caller ID on all calls. Because Gizmo5 IDs were in the format 747NXXXXXX, it was possible to confuse calls made from Gizmo5 with calls made from area code 747.
  10. The New York Times sent the number 111-111-1111 for all calls made from its offices until 15 August 2011. The fake number was intended to prevent the extensions of its reporters appearing in call logs, and thus protect reporters from having to divulge calls made to anonymous sources. The Times abandoned this practice because of the proposed changes to the caller ID law, and because many companies were blocking calls from the well-known number.
  11. Wirelessly calling 911 involves, in one worst-case scenario, the immediate muster of available, expensive, universal translation and relay resources to determine from the caller's spoken language, not known to the responding dispatcher, the address of the emergency. Caller ID spoofing the street address of a 911 call known to local GPS, by GPS to street address decoding software, running on the same IP connection as a wireless VoIP 911 call, could save these resources and improve service by delivering GPS-accurate location data to the dispatched responders at the time it is needed. (Only about ten hexadecimal digits are needed.)

Our Community

Please join in this discussion — if you would like to express your opinion. I will publish your response in the LETTERS TO THE EDITOR section. You can send me an e-mail by clicking here:   left arrow

There are some funny April Fool's items included in this issue. I hope you can find them.

Oh yes, one other thing, please don't forget:

A Consulting Alliance

Brad Dye, Ron Mercer, Allan Angus, Vic Jackson, and Ira Wiesenfeld are friends and colleagues who work both together and independently, on wireline and wireless communications projects.

Click here left arrow for a summary of their qualifications and experience. Each one has unique abilities. We would be happy to help you with a project, and maybe save you some time and money.

Please take a look at the Wi-Fi capable Security Cameras from: UltraTek Security Cameras . In today's world we can't be too careful. It is very important to have a record of what is going on around your home and/or business. Call Jim and tell him Brad sent you.

Now on to more news and views

The Weather in
Wayne County‚ Illinois

Find more about Weather in Fairfield, IL
Click for weather forecast

Wireless Messaging News
  • Emergency Radio Communications
  • Wireless Messaging
  • Critical Messaging
  • Telemetry
  • Paging
  • Wi-Fi
wireless logo medium

About Us

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

There is no charge for subscription and there are no membership restrictions. Readers are a very select group of wireless industry professionals, and include the senior managers of many of the world’s major Paging and Wireless Messaging companies. There is an even mix of operations managers, marketing people, and engineers — so I try to include items of interest to all three groups. It’s all about staying up-to-date with business trends and technology.

I regularly get readers’ comments, so this newsletter has become a community forum for the Paging, and Wireless Messaging communities. You are welcome to contribute your ideas and opinions. Unless otherwise requested, all correspondence addressed to me is subject to publication in the newsletter and on my web site. I am very careful to protect the anonymity of those who request it.

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

Editorial Policy

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.

Back To Paging


Still The Most Reliable Protocol For Wireless Messaging!


* required field

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

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



Valid CSS!


Can You Help The Newsletter?

left arrow

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.

Reader Support

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

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

Newsletter Advertising


If you are reading this, your potential customers are reading it as well.

Please click here to find out how.

Advertiser Index

American Messaging
Critical Alert
Critical Response Systems
Easy Solutions
Hark Technologies
Ira Wiesenfeld & Associates
Leavitt Communications
Preferred Wireless
Prism Paging
Product Support Services — (PSSI)
Paging & Wireless Network Planners LLC — (Ron Mercer)
STI Engineering
UltraTek Security Cameras
WaveWare Technologies


By PYMNTS @pymnts
7:15 AM EDT April 3rd, 2015

Do you have a dependent, perhaps slightly complicated relationship with your smartphone? You’re not alone.

The Pew Research Center, in association with the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, has released detailed findings from a series of surveys on the current state of smartphone ownership in America.

Two overarching takeaways from the study are that close to two-thirds of Americans own a smartphone, and 19 percent of Americans — to one degree or another — rely on a smartphone for its internet connectivity.

The report takes a particular focus on what it calls the “smartphone-dependent” population: the 7 percent of Americans who own a smartphone but have access to no other traditional service for going online, such as a broadband connection.

Identified by the study are three groups of Americans who rely most heavily on smartphones for online access: younger adults (ages 15-29), at 15 percent; those with low household incomes (less than $30,000 per year), at 13 percent; and non-whites, with 12 percent of African Americans and 13 percent of Latinos deemed smartphone-dependent (compared to 4 percent of white Americans).

The study bore out that nearly half (48 percent) of smartphone-dependent Americans have had to cancel or shut off their cell phone service at some point due to financial hardship, while 30 percent of those polled expressed that they “frequently” max out their data plan.

A majority (68 percent) of smartphone owners surveyed reported that they use their phone to follow breaking news and to stay informed about their local community. 67 percent use their phone at least occasionally for turn-by-turn navigation while driving, with 31 percent stating that they do so “frequently.”

54 of smartphone owners described their phone as “not always needed”, but on the contrary, 46 percent said that it is something that they “couldn’t live without.” Of those who pay more than $200 a month for service, 29 percent said that it is a “financial burden.”

In the “experience sampling” portion of the study, it was determined that text messaging is the most widely-used smartphone feature…but a majority of people — including young smartphone owners — still often use their devices to make phone calls (be it video or voice). Additionally, the survey showed that young users are most likely to use a smartphone to avoid boredom, as well as to ignore fellow human beings in their midst.

Exhibiting the double-edged sword of smartphone ownership, 79 percent of those polled said that their devices made them feel “productive” (with 77 percent choosing the term “happy”), but 57 percent reported that their phone made them feel “distracted” (with 37 percent settling on “frustrated”).

The results of the Pew Research Center poll were based based on telephone surveys that were conducted among 2,002 adults from December 4-7 and 18-21, 2014.


Product Support Services, Inc.

Repair and Refurbishment Services

pssi logo


Product Support Services, Inc.

511 South Royal Lane
Coppell, Texas 75019
(972) 462-3970 Ext. 261 left arrow left arrow

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

American Messaging


American Messaging


WaveWare Technologies

2630 National Dr., Garland, TX 75041

Now stocking the full line of Daviscomms paging products

New Products

SPS-5v9E Paging System

  • 1 Serial Port Connection
  • 2 Ethernet Connections
  • Browser and Serial Port Configuration
  • TAP, COMP2, Scope, WaveWare SNPP, COMP2, & PET Protocols
  • 2W, 5W Option

DMG Protocol Converter

  • Linux Based Embedded System
  • Up to 4 Serial Port Connections
  • Ethernet Connections
  • Browser Configuration
  • Protocol Conversion
  • Additional Protocols Available Soon

WaveWare Technologies


Easy Solutions

easy solutions

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

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

Experts in Paging Infrastructure

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

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

Easy Solutions
3220 San Simeon Way
Plano, Texas 75023

Vaughan Bowden
Telephone: 972-898-1119

Easy Solutions

Health care industry receives first mobile apps from Apple, IBM

Fred O'Connor
IDG News Service
Apr 1, 2015 3:37 PM

An enterprise mobility partnership between Apple and IBM has yielded more iPhone and iPad apps, including the first ones for the health care industry and industrial production management.

Under an agreement announced last July , the two companies develop enterprises mobile apps together, and IBM sells and supports Apple hardware . The first 10 mobile apps debuted in late December and a second batch was released in March. The apps released this week bring the total offered to 22.

The four new healthcare apps are for nurses who work in hospitals and provide home care. Hospital RN replaces a nurse’s pager and phone with an iPhone, and allows them to access a patient’s records. The app uses iBeacon technology to identify patients and displays notifications including status updates on hospital equipment that is offline, backups at the lab and patient requests.

Hospital RN gives nurses a lot more information than a pager would.

The Hospital Lead App for iPads is for nurses who run a hospital department. The app aims to help them better manage caseloads by combining information from several databases into a dashboard.

An app for nurse technicians keeps them aware of patient requests, lab statuses and other information required for patient care. The final health care app is for nurses who care for patients outside of hospitals and allows them to remotely upload text, video, and photos to a patient’s medical record.

The industrial production sector also received its first app. Called Rapid Handover, this app allows foreman to exchange information with shift workers, like equipment status and production goals.

Rapid Handover lets an industrial foreman quickly find out where the previous shift left off, including issues like broken equipment or safety hazards.

IBM and Apple added apps for the travel and transportation, retail and insurance industries as well. The travel iPad app is for flight attendants and allows them to sell food, beverage and seat upgrades and gives passengers the option of using Apple Pay to make a purchase.

A retail app for the iPad gives merchants access to sales data to help them better plan what products to offer. Finally, the insurance iPad app allows insurance inspectors to take photos and videos of a site and gives them access to data like neighborhood crime statistics and claim information.

Apple CEO Tim Cook described the backgrounds of his company and IBM’s as “complementary” at a conference in February . Apple lacks knowledge of industry verticals, an area IBM that has “deep knowledge” in, while IBM doesn’t offer devices like smartphones and tablets, Cook said. The partnership may also help revive iPad sales, which have declined over the past three quarters, Cook said during Apple’s most recent earnings call .

Source: PC World

Ivy Corp UltraTek Security Cameras



Please click the Learn More button.

security camera


Monitor your home, or business, “Day or Night.” True motion detection “turn-on and record” for “current” or “future viewing.” May be set up via Wi-Fi using the Wi-Fi capable unit.

All information is on the site: left arrow

or call, Jim, 1-662-284-6724

Critical Response Systems

More than Paging.
First Responder Solutions.

Our patented technology notifies clinical personnel immediately, while tracking who receives and responds to each alarm. Users confirm or defer each event with a single button press, and analytic dashboards display response statistics in real time, as well as historically broken down by time, unit, room, and individual.

Our systems not only notify your personnel quickly and reliably, but also provide actionable feedback to fine-tune your procedures, reduce unnecessary alarms, and improve patient outcomes.


On its 5th anniversary, Apple's iPad remains world's best tablet, but tablet market is due for change

By Neil Hughes
Friday, April 03, 2015, 07:15 am PT (10:15 am ET)

The iPad has proven to be a bigger success than just about anyone, including Apple, ever predicted. But while the overall tablet market exploded, riding high on the success of the iPad, it plateaued just as quickly, and seems poised for a shakeup in the near future.

Friday marks five years since the first iPad went on sale in 2010. In that time, Apple has sold nearly 250 million tablets.

Not bad for a market that was essentially nonexistent before Apple's entrance.

The iPad has proven to be a versatile device, in use everywhere from checkout registers to the classroom. For many, the iPad offers enough power and screen size for day-to-day computing, but with the added convenience of an ultra-portable form factor.

First, let's take a look at how the iPad has evolved over the last five years.

Thinner, lighter, faster, better

When the first iPad launched on April 3, 2010, it came in one screen size of 9.7 inches. The first model was thick, with a rounded back, and lacked any cameras. Critics decried it as a giant iPod touch, but consumers embraced it, seeing it as a viable low-cost PC alternative.

After a strong start, Apple further accelerated the device's momentum the following year with the iPad 2, featuring an all-new, thinner design, as well as the addition of the magnetic Smart Cover. The iPad 2 also gained both a rear camera and a forward facing FaceTime camera, and its design essentially set the stage for all future iPads to come.

It was another big year in 2012, when the third-generation 9.7-inch iPad was upgraded to a Retina display. But its A5X processor wasn't providing quite enough horsepower for the high-resolution display, and Apple opted to give the "iPad 3" the shortest lifespan of any of its tablets, quickly releasing a fourth-generation model with a faster A6X CPU and the new Lightning port later that year.

Also in late 2012 , Apple expanded the iPad lineup with the new the 7.9-inch iPad mini. Though Apple initially decried smaller tablets, the iPad mini allowed the company to hit a lower price point and broaden the appeal of the platform.

Late 2013 saw the debut of the svelte iPad Air , which adopted the thin-bezel design of the iPad mini. And the 7.9-inch iPad mini was also upgraded to a Retina display.

Iterative changes continued in 2014, when the iPad Air 2 became slightly thinner and lighter, and gained an A8X chip and Touch ID fingerprint sensing home button. The iPad mini 3 also boasts Touch ID, but its design and internal components are unchanged.

iPad becomes synonymous with tablet

Sure, tablets existed before the iPad, but the introduction of the first iPad in 2010 defined the modern tablet.

Today, most tablets follow Apple's design philosophy: Finger-based input, mobile CPU, long battery life, and minimal ports and buttons. In the years since the introduction of the iPad, many competitors have stepped up to the plate, including the Samsung Galaxy Tab, Amazon Kindle Fire, and Microsoft Surface.

And while some of those devices have managed to carve out a niche, none have come close to the success of the iPad. Time after time, data over the last five years has consistently shown that Apple's iPad is by far the most popular and most used tablet available on the market, absolutely dominating competitors.

Numerous studies show that the lion's share of tablet use by both consumers and businesses is represented by Apple's iPad, with no competing device anywhere near as popular.

For example, last quarter Apple noted that the iPad alone was responsible for 70 percent of tablet-based Web traffic, while 82 percent of all U.S. e-commerce transactions from tablets come from iPads. Usage of the iPad is six times that of Apple's nearest competitor.

The story is the same in the enterprise market, where Apple accounts for nearly all tablets sold, achieving levels of success never seen by the Mac. Seeing this, Apple struck a deal with IBM to create enterprise-tailored apps and support, hoping to gain a foothold and maintain its position among business users.

"The deeper the apps go in the enterprise, the more it opens up avenues in the enterprise," Apple CEO Tim Cook said last October .

Thinner designs, but also thinner sales

Apple's iPad not only defines the tablet, market, but it also sets the tone for sales. And although the company has gradually improved the designs of its iPads over the last five years, sales in recent quarters have declined.

Apple isn't alone in that trend, however — other tablet sales are down as well. But why?

Amidst declining iPad sales, Apple CEO Tim Cook has said he plans to return growth to the platform eventually.

Cook has said that there are a variety of factors contributing to declining sales, including the popularity of new iPhones with larger screens, and the fact that consumers don't feel a need to upgrade their tablet as often as they do their smartphone. Last October, he said he's still unsure what the upgrade cycle will be for consumers, because the market remains so young.

When asked to guess, Cook said he believes the upgrade cycle for an iPad is "probably between an iPhone and a PC."

Still, Cook and Apple's executive brass have signaled they are bullish about the prospects for the iPad over the long-term. Though the CEO told investors in January that they shouldn't expect sales to turn around in the immediate future, he has also suggested his company could have a few tricks up its sleeve.

"I view it as a speed bump, not a huge issue," Cook said of continued declining iPad sales last October. "That said, we want to grow. We don't like negative numbers on these things."

What next?

Cook wants iPad sales to grow once again, at least eventually. How he plans to get there in a declining tablet market remains unknown, but some are pinning their hopes on a so-called "iPad Pro."

The long-rumored jumbo-sized iPad is expected to feature a screen size between 12 and 13 inches, with most rumors pegging the exact size at 12.9 inches. It's believed that this model could serve as a more powerful mobile computing device, and a potential laptop replacement for some users.

Rumors have suggested an "iPad Pro" could come alongside an upgraded version of iOS that would take advantage of the larger display real estate. For example, a larger iPad could support split-screen multitasking, something that is not possible on the current lineup.

Well-connected analyst Ming-Chi Kuo of KGI Securities also indicated in January that Apple is working on a hardware stylus that will enhance the user experience of its anticipated larger iPad. According to Kuo, the stylus will likely be an optional add-on that will provide new and more precise input methods for users who need it.

One of Apple's latest filings detailed an iPad stylus with extendable 'multitouch' nib, onboard light and motion sensors.

There have also been rumors that Apple could expand the productivity of the iPad with a USB expansion port , possibly with the new, smaller USB-C connector allowing easier connectivity with accessories such as a keyboard or mouse. Purported "iPad Pro" parts leaked from Apple's supply chain have also suggested Apple could introduce stereo speakers and landscape mode docking of the device.

Since rumors of the 12.9-inch iPad have been around for years, the release date remains an unknown. The latest reports have suggested it could launch this year, but there have been no solid indications that Apple intends to release it soon — or at all.

If the "iPad Pro" goes the way of the Apple television and other heavily rumored, nonexistent products, it's unclear what else Apple may have on tap to reignite sales of its market leading tablet.

Five years after its launch, the iPad finds itself at a crossroads. But while the future of Apple's tablet is currently unclear, the iPad's astounding success remains indisputable.

Source: appleinsider


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

UNICATIONbendix king

motorola blue Motorola SOLUTIONS

COMmotorola red Motorola MOBILITY spacer
Philip C. Leavitt
Leavitt Communications
7508 N. Red Ledge Drive
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253
Web Site:
Mobile phone:847-494-0000
Skype ID:pcleavitt

STI Engineering

sti header

250W VHF Paging Transmitter

STI Engineering’s RFI-148 250 high performance paging transmitter features true DDS frequency generation that enables precise control and flexibility for a wide range of data transmission applications.

The transmitter is particularly suitable for large simulcast POCSAG and FLEX paging networks and can be used as drop-in replacement of older and obsolete transmitters. The unit has a proven track record in large scale critical messaging systems.

sti tx
  • High power output
    (selectable from 20 W - 250 W)
  • SNMP Diagnostics and alarms
  • Full VHF Band coverage
    (138-174 MHz)
  • DSP precision modulation
  • Integrated isolator
  • Sniffer port for in-rack receiver
  • Remote firmware upgrade capability
  • Software selectable frequency offset
  • Adjustable absolute delay correction
  • Front panel diagnostics
  • Hardware alarm outputs
  • High frequency stability
  • External reference option
  • FCC and ACMA approved
  • CE compliant version in development
22 Boulder Road Malaga 6090 Western Australia
Telephone:  +61 8 9209 0900
Facsimile:  +61 8 9248 2833

Leavitt Communications

its stil here

It’s still here — the tried and true Motorola Alphamate 250. Now owned, supported, and available from Leavitt Communications. Call us for new or reconditioned units, parts, manuals, and repairs.

We also offer refurbished Alphamate 250s, Alphamate IIs, the original Alphamate and new and refurbished pagers, pager repairs, pager parts and accessories. We are FULL SERVICE in Paging!

E-mail Phil Leavitt ( ) for pricing and delivery information or for a list of other available paging and two-way related equipment.

black line

Phil Leavitt

leavitt logo

7508 N. Red Ledge Drive
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253

Hark Technologies

hark logo

Wireless Communication Solutions

USB Paging Encoder

paging encoder

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

Paging Data Receiver (PDR)


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

Other products

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

Hark Technologies
717 Old Trolley Rd Ste 6 #163
Summerville, SC 29485
Tel: 843-821-6888
Fax: 843-821-6894
E-mail: left arrow CLICK
Web: left arrow CLICK

hark David George and Bill Noyes
of Hark Technologies.

Hark Technologies

Preferred Wireless

preferred logo

Terminals & Controllers:
1ASC1500 Complete, w/Spares  
3CNET Platinum Controllers 
2GL3100 RF Director 
1GL3000 ES — 2 Chassis
1GL3000L Complete w/Spares
40SkyData 8466 B Receivers
1Unipage—Many Unipage Cards & Chassis
16Zetron M66 Transmitter Controllers  
Link Transmitters:
4Glenayre QT4201 25W Midband Link TX
1Glenayre QT6994, 150W, 900 MHz Link TX
3Motorola 10W, 900 MHz Link TX (C35JZB6106)
2Eagle 900 MHz Link Transmitters, 60 & 80W
2Motorola Q2630A, 30W, UHF Link TX
VHF Paging Transmitters
19 Motorola Nucleus 125W CNET
6Motorola Nucleus 350W CNET
12Motorola Nucleus 350W Advanced Control
1Glenayre QT7505
1Glenayre QT8505
UHF Paging Transmitters:
16Glenayre UHF GLT5340, 125W, DSP Exciter
900 MHz Paging Transmitters:
2Glenayre GLT8200, 25W (NEW)
15Glenayre GLT-8500 250W
3Glenayre GLT 8600, 500W


Too Much To List • Call or E-Mail

Rick McMichael
Preferred Wireless, Inc.
10658 St. Charles Rock Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63074
888-429-4171 or 314-429-3000 left arrow

Preferred Wireless







CVC Paging

Switch Tech

CVC Paging has an opening for a Glenayre Switch Technician in our Vermont location.

For details please contact Stephan Suker at 802-775-6726 or

CVC Paging


Critical Alert

spacer cas logo

Critical Alert Systems, Inc.

Formed in 2010, CAS brought together the resources and capabilities of two leading critical messaging solutions providers, UCOM™ and Teletouch™ Paging, along with lntego Systems™, a pioneer in next-generation nurse call systems. The result was an organization that represented more than 40 years of combined experience serving hospitals and healthcare providers.

CAS was created to be a single-source provider for hospitals and healthcare facilities in need of advanced nurse call and communications technologies.

Unlike our competitors, our product development process embraced the power of software from its inception. This enables us to design hardware-agnostic solutions focused on built-in integration, flexibility and advanced performance.


Nurse Call Solutions

Innovation in Nurse Call

Innovative, software-based nurse call solutions for acute and long-term care organizations.


Paging Solutions

The Most Reliable Paging Network

To this day, for critical messaging, nothing beats paging. It’s simply the best way to deliver a critical message.



© Copyright 2015 - Critical Alert Systems, Inc.

Selected portions 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 with the firm’s permission.

BloostonLaw Telecom UpdateVol. 18, No. 14April 1, 2015

Open Internet Order Repealed; Internet Closes Immediately

In a sudden and shocking turn of events, the FCC repealed its Open Internet Order as of April 1, 2015, thereby closing the Internet forever. Anonymous FCC sources stated “We were better off as a country before the internet. Now hours of productivity are wasted on tomfoolery such as the Kardashians and angry birds. We have got to put a stop to it all.”

BloostonLaw Contact: April F. Ools


FCC Expected to Adopt Spectrum Sharing and “Small Cells” Proposal in 3.5 GHz “Innovation Band”

At its next Open Meeting scheduled for April 17th, the FCC is expected to adopt Part 96 Rules and issue a Further NPRM for a new “Citizen’s Broadband Service” in the 3550-3700 MHz band. The service would make 150 megahertz of contiguous spectrum available for general consumer use, carrier-grade small cell deployments, fixed wireless broadband services, and other innovative uses on the basis of a “tiered access” spectrum sharing model.

The item comes in response to an NPRM ( FCC 14-49 ) that was issued last Spring and which followed upon recommendations in a July 2012 Report issued by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The PCAST Report recognized that access to wireless spectrum was an increasingly important foundation for America’s economic growth, and that advances in technology would allow for shared use of spectrum that had previously been set aside exclusively for Federal Government operations.

A recent FCC Blog post by Chairman Tom Wheeler refers to the 3.5 GHz band as an “innovation band.”

“As a result of technological innovations and new focus on spectrum sharing, we can combine it with adjacent spectrum to create a 150 megahertz contiguous band previously unavailable for commercial uses,” wrote Wheeler. “It provides an opportunity to try new innovations in spectrum licensing and access schemes to meet the needs of a multiplicity of users, simultaneously. And, crucially, we can do all of this in a way that does not harm important federal missions.”

Under the FCC’s proposal, access and operation within the 3.5 GHz band would be managed by a dynamic database known as the Spectrum Access System or “SAS.” The SAS incorporates technical and functional requirements necessary to manage spectrum access and limit interference between three categories of users – Incumbent Access, Priority Access, and General Authorized Access (GAA) tiers.
Existing primary operations – including authorized federal users and grandfathered Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations – would compose the Incumbent Access tier, and would receive protection from harmful interference within geographic Exclusion Zones from Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. The CBRS Priority Access tier would come next and make targeted, short-duration licenses” available for auction. Finally, the CBRS General Authorized Access tier would have lowest priority, but would be open for free use by any FCC-certified device (i.e. like Wi-Fi).

Adoption of the Citizen’s Broadband Service Report and Order is not without some controversy. For one, the R&O is expected to adopt technical, auction, and allocation rules that are applicable to the entirety of the 3550-3700 MHz band. As a result, 3650-3700 MHz operators who now have a measure of protection from having been first to deploy service in their area may be forced to purchase “Priority Access” rights at auction to ensure the same level of protection as they enjoy now. Licensees in what is known as the 3.65 GHz service currently obtain a non-exclusive nationwide license and combine this with registration of fixed or base stations under Part 90 Rules.

Another issue involves which sorts of wireless technologies will be permitted for use on the 3550-3700 MHz band, and the possibility that commercial operators may use proprietary technologies to integrate 3.5 GHz spectrum with their licensed spectrum in a way that could “drown out” other users in the zero-cost GAA tier. In this regard, think tank New America Foundation and other public interest advocates have raised concerns with the FCC about a new technology known as “License Assisted Access” and how its use could inhibit open and fair sharing of the 3.5 GHz band unless the FCC adopts appropriate safeguards.

While we have not had an opportunity to review the new rules or the fine print of the Commission’s yet-to-be-adopted Report and Order, industry reports and language from FCC Chairman Wheeler’s blog post strongly suggest that the Commission is planning to include the 3650-3700 MHz band as part of the new Part 96 Rules. It will be important for 3.65 GHz band operators to be aware of the FCC’s timetable for transition to the new rules, and to understand what grandfathering rights will apply.

FCC Adopts NPRM on Part 4 Outage Reporting

On March 27, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Second Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration regarding its Part 4 outage reporting rules, which require certain providers of communications to electronically file reports of network outages that exceed specified thresholds of magnitude and duration.

In the NPRM, the FCC seeks comment on proposals to improve the Commission’s Part 4 rules. According to the NPRM, the proposals are based largely on the FCC’s experience with the Network Outage Reporting System (NORS) program. The FCC emphasized that it is seeking to determine the most cost-effective approach to revising the rules, and so specifically seeks comment on the costs and benefits associated with the proposals, which include:

  • revising Section 4.5(e)(1) to clarify that any network malfunction or higher-level issue that significantly degrades or prevents 911 calls from being completed constitutes a “loss of communications to PSAP(s),” regardless of whether the PSAP is rendered completely unable to receive 911 calls;
  • amending Part 4 to require the reporting of systemic wireless call failures that result from radio access network (RAN) overloading;
  • redefining the reporting threshold, which is currently defined in terms of impact on DS3 circuits, in terms of “OC3 minutes” instead (i.e., based on impact on OC3 circuits or other circuits or aggregations of circuits that provide equal or greater capacity);
  • shortening the reporting timeframe for simplex outage events from five days to 48 hours;
  • adopting a more standardized, technology neutral method for calculating the number of users “potentially affected” by a wireless network outage, such as multiplying the number of cell sites disabled as part of the outage by the average number of users it serves per site or the actual number of users that were being served at each affected cell site when the outage commenced (using the Visitor Location Register);
  • classifying as “special offices and facilities” those facilities enrolled in or eligible for the Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) program, which prioritizes the restoration and provisioning of circuits used by entities with National Security/Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) responsibilities and duties;
  • amending the definition of “special offices and facilities” to exclude all airports other than those designated “primary commercial service” airports in the NPIAS; and
  • granting states read-only access to those portions of the NORS database that pertain to communications outages in their respective states, and entertaining requests from other federal agencies for access to NORS data, but acting upon such requests on a case-by-case basis.

Deadlines for comments and reply comments on the NPRM portion of the document have not yet been established.

In the Second Report and Order, the FCC declined to adopt a proposal to extend Section 4.5(b) to cover general aviation airports. In the Order on Reconsideration, the FCC addressed nine Petitions for Reconsideration of aspects of the 2004 Part 4 Report and Order.

FCC Asserts Petitions for Review of Open Internet Order are Premature

On March 27, the FCC filed a Notice of Multi-circuit Petitions for Review to the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation, concerning the Petitions for Review that were filed regarding its recent Open Internet Order. In its cover letter to the Court, the FCC asserted that the Petitions for Review are premature because the Order has not appeared in the Federal Register yet and, therefore, is not yet considered “final” — a necessary prerequisite for Petitions for Review.

As we reported in last week’s BloostonLaw Telecom Update, two Petitions for Review were filed the same day the Order was released to the public — USTelecom filed a “Protective” Petition for Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and Alamo Broadband filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In cases where review of the same order is sought in multiple circuits, the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation is charged with determining in which court the review will ultimately take place. Readers may recall the same process occurred with the FCC’s USF/ICC Reform Order, which ultimately ended up being reviewed in the 10th Circuit.

The FCC’s letter indicates it believes that the court that is selected by the Panel to review the Order will be the one that will decide whether the Petitions are actually premature, and further that the FCC intends to file motions to dismiss on those grounds at that time.

Law & Regulation

Order on Access Tariff Filing Procedures Released

On March 27, the FCC’s Pricing Policy Division issued an Order establishing the procedures for filing this year’s annual access charge tariffs and Tariff Review Plans (TRP) for price cap ILECs and for rate-of-return ILECs subject to sections 61.382 and 61.393.

The Order sets an effective date of July 1, 2015, for the July 2015 annual access charge tariff filings, and established several key deadlines: Comments on the short form TRP are due May 29, and reply comments due June 5. ILEC tariffs are due June 16, for those filing on 15 days’ notice, and June 24, for those filing on seven days’ notice; petitions to suspend or reject tariff filings made on 15 days’ notice are due June 23, with replies due June 26; and petitions to suspend or reject tariff filings made on seven days’ notice are due June 26 (by noon Eastern Time), with replies due June 29 (by noon Eastern Time).

Order Clarifying ICC Transition Rules for Rate-of-Return LECs Effective April 27

On March 26, 2015, the FCC published in the Federal Register the Order issued on February 24, 2015, clarifying certain rules relating to implementation of the ICC transition for rate-of-return LECs adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order. The Order is therefore effective April 27.

As we reported in the February 25 edition of the BloostonLaw Telecom Update, the Order clarified that a rate-of-return carrier that received too much Eligible Recovery in 2012-13 because of an under-projection of demand for that tariff period, and does not have sufficient Eligible Recovery in 2014-15 to fully offset the 2012-13 amount of over-recovery, must refund the amount that is not offset to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to avoid duplicative recovery. The FCC further clarified that a rate-of-return carrier that received too little Eligible Recovery in 2012-13 because of an over-projection of demand for that tariff period may seek recovery for any amounts it was not able to recover through its 2014-15 Eligible Recovery from USAC.

Petition for Reconsideration Filed on FCC Treble Damages Policy

Earlier this month, CTIA, NCTA, COMPTEL and USTelecom filed a Petition for Reconsideration of an FCC Policy Statement in which the FCC adopted a treble damages methodology to assess forfeitures for failure to pay USF, TRS, LNP, NANP, and other regulatory fee programs. Under this methodology, violators’ apparent base forfeiture liability would be three times the debt.

According to the associations, the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the FCC failed to hold a notice and comment proceeding before adopting the policy, and is arbitrary and capricious because it abandons the existing, flexible regulatory regime in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach that will lead to “potentially draconian” results. The Associations also argue that the FCC’s assertion that such failure-to-pay violations are continuing violations for the purposes of the statutory maximum forfeiture is “fundamentally inconsistent” with the one-year statute of limitations in the Act.

At this time, the FCC has not sought comment on the Petition.

Comment Sought on Defining Commencement of Operations in the 600 MHz Band

On March 26, the FCC released a Public Notice seeking comment on defining the term “commence operations” in the context of the transition rules applicable to the incentive auction through which certain broadcast television spectrum will be repurposed for wireless flexible use to create the 600 MHz Band. Comments are due May 1, and reply comments are due May 18.

Specifically, the FCC proposes that a 600 MHz Band licensee be deemed to “commence operations” in an area when it begins site activation and commissioning tests, using permanent base station equipment and permanent antenna or tower locations. This means that a 600 MHz Band wireless licensee’s operations would be deemed to “commence” prior to the licensee’s launch of commercial services in an area, as site commissioning tests ordinarily take place in the late stages of a deployment, after the wireless licensee has completed construction of physical network infrastructure that will provide commercial service in the area. The FCC seeks further comment on whether any other type of testing by a wireless licensee should be deemed the “commencement” of operations, and if there is a specific stage of testing other than site commissioning tests that would be an appropriate benchmark.


Public Workshop on Broadband Consumer Privacy Scheduled

On March 30, the FCC’s Wireline Competition and Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureaus announced that a public workshop will be held to “explore the Commission’s role in protecting the privacy of consumers that use broadband Internet access service.” The workshop will be held on April 28 at 10 a.m. Eastern Time at FCC headquarters in Washington, D.C., and will be broadcast live at .

The staffed workshop is intended to provide “an opportunity for diverse stakeholders to explore a range of matters associated with the application of statutory privacy protections to broadband Internet access service.” The press release also notes that participants will have the opportunity to “address whether and to what extent the Commission can apply a harmonized privacy framework across various services within the Commission’s jurisdiction.”

Calendar At A Glance

Apr. 1 – FCC Form 499-A (Annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet) is due.
Apr. 1 – Annual Accessibility Certification is due.
Apr. 7 – Reply comments are due on 911 Outage NPRM.
Apr. 13 – Reply comments are due on Letter of Credit Requirements.
Apr. 14 – Deadline for reply comments on Online Public File Expansion NPRM.
Apr. 21 – Reply Comments are due on 911 Policy NPRM.

May 1 – FCC Form 499-Q (Quarterly Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet) is due.
May 18 – Short Form Tariff Review Plan is due.
May 29 – Comments on Short Form Tariff Review Plans are due.
May 31 – FCC Form 395 (Annual Employment Report) is due.

Jun. 1 – FCC Form 395 (Annual Employment Report) is due.
Jun. 5 – Reply comments on Short Form Tariff Review Plans are due.
Jun. 16 – Tariffs filed on 15 days’ notice are due.
Jun. 23 – Petitions to Suspend or Reject Tariffs filed on 15 days’ notice are due.
Jun. 24 – Tariffs filed on 7 days’ notice are due.
Jun. 26 – Replies to Petitions to Suspend or Reject Tariffs filed on 15 days’ notice are due.
Jun. 26 – Petitions to Suspend or Reject Tariffs filed on 7 days’ notice are due by noon Eastern Time.
Jun. 29 – Replies to Petitions to Suspend or Reject Tariffs filed on 7 days’ notice due by noon Eastern Time.

BloostonLaw Private Users UpdateVol. 16, No. 3March 2015

FirstNet Holds Special Meeting; Chairman Swenson Testifies before Senate Oversight Hearing

FirstNet board members recently met to consider issuing a second public notice on key policy questions during a special board meeting, and FirstNet Chairwoman Susan Swenson testified earlier today as part of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee’s first oversight hearing about the three-year-old organization to evaluate FirstNet’s progress in establishing the first nationwide broadband network for emergency first responders. Along with Swenson, Bruce Andrews, Deputy Secretary of Commerce; Mark Goldstein, Director (Physical Infrastructure) for the Government Accounting Office (GAO); Todd Zinser, Inspector General of the Commerce Department and Chief Keith Bryant, President and Chairman of the International Association of Fire Chiefs testified before the Committee. The focus of the hearing was three fold: (a) receive an update on progress made by FirstNet; (b) determine any challenges and (c) ensure that service will be provided in rural areas.


Swenson advised that FirstNet has been able to benefit from its experience with the BTOP grants. In particular, issues involving the BTOP grant in Los Angeles have forced FirstNet to reconsider its strategy that was originally going to piggyback a nationwide broadband system on existing state and local government public safety infrastructure. As a result of that evaluation, FirstNet has determined that reliance on commercial infrastructure is more suitable since agreements and memorandums of understanding (MOUs) would not be required. Swenson also reported that FirstNet released a public notice earlier this week seeking comment on system design. It will also be releasing a draft request for proposal (RFP) later this month in order to obtain feedback which can then be reflected in the final version that is scheduled for release at the end of the year. Finally, FirstNet has continued the consultation process with the states and their tribal partners. Swenson indicated that these consultations are ongoing and are necessary for FirstNet to develop an accurate RFP that will meet each state’s individual requirements.


The Government Accounting Office estimates that the total cost of a nationwide broadband public safety system will be significantly more expensive than the $7 billion that FirstNet will received as a result of the AWS-3 spectrum auction. While FirstNet believes that it will have additional funding because of user fees from commercial players, there is still a concern that FirstNet may not have enough funds to build the system. An audit of FirstNet reflected that there were insufficient internal controls in place to ensure compliance with federal requirements — especially in the procurement area. The GAO indicated that FirstNet is making progress in correcting these deficiencies. Swenson noted that federal requirements and reliance on other agencies for services are slowing FirstNet’s progress. In particular, FirstNet does not have hiring authority and must rely on other agencies for this authority. As a result, it is taking FirstNet six to nine months to hire a new employee. FirstNet and various senators agreed that processes need to be streamlined so that FirstNet can meet its obligations to build the necessary 700 MHz nationwide broadband public safety communications system.

Rural Areas

Several of the senators, including Senator Thune expressed concern as to whether FirstNet would bring service to rural America. While it is well known that rural America is not typically a high priority for large commercial carriers due to economic considerations, FirstNet was clear that service throughout rural America and tribal areas is a top priority. In discussing this priority, Swenson stated that there are rural area milestones and that construction will be completed in phases since it is impossible to construct the entire network simultaneously. Swenson concluded her remarks on this subject by indicating that FirstNet talks more about rural than urban because “it is that important.”

Cyber Security

The Committee identified cyber security as an issue for ensuring the safety of the public safety communications network because of the potential for terrorists and other individuals or groups to disrupt our critical communications capabilities. Swenson and Secretary Andrews both reassured the Committee that cyber security is a high priority and that FirstNet is collaborating with the appropriate agencies to ensure that the system will be protected from attack.

Throughout the hearing, the senators appeared to support the work of FirstNet and want to take steps that will facilitate its success. While there is concern with problems that FirstNet has had in the past, it also appeared that the Committee was supportive of the overall progress made to date. The question is whether or not FirstNet can sustain this progress and construct a new system that is financially viable within the funding limits provided by Congress.


FCC Allows Cargo Airlines to Notify Customers of Package Deliveries Without Violating Consumer Protections

The FCC has granted a request by the Cargo Airlines Association to exempt its proposed free-to-end-user package delivery notifications to consumers’ wireless phones from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) constraints on autodialed and prerecorded calls and messages to wireless telephone numbers, as long as consumers are not charged and may easily opt out of future messages . The TCPA was enacted by Congress in 1991 with the objective of protecting consumers from unwanted telephone marketing calls and faxes, which are often considered by consumers to be intrusive and an invasion of their privacy. The law also restricts making calls or sending text messages using automatic telephone dialing systems and prerecorded voice messages (also referred to as “robocalls”) to cell phones and other mobile service devices.

The Commission’s action will allow wireless consumers to receive package delivery notifications via their wireless phones with the following stipulations:

  1. A notification must be sent, if at all, only to the telephone number for the package recipient;
  2. Notifications must identify the name of the delivery company and include the contact information for the delivery company;
  3. Notifications must not include any telemarketing, solicitation or advertising content;
  4. Voice call and text message notifications must be concise, generally one minute or less in duration for voice calls and one message of 160 characters in length for text messages;
  5. Delivery companies shall send only one notification (whether voice call or text message) per package, except that one additional notification may be sent to a consumer for each of the following two attempts to obtain the recipient’s signature when the signatory is not available to sign for the package on the previous delivery attempt;
  6. Delivery companies relying on this exemption must offer parties the ability to opt out of receiving future delivery notification calls and messages and must honor the opt-out requests within a reasonable time from the date such request is made, not to exceed thirty days; and
  7. Each notification must include information on how to opt out of future delivery notifications; voice call notifications that could be answered by a live person must include an automated, interactive voice-and/or key press-activated opt-out mechanism that enables the called person to make an opt-out request prior to terminating the call; voice call notifications that could be answered by an answering machine or voice mail service must include a toll-free number that the consumer can call to opt out of future package delivery notifications; text notifications must include the ability for the recipient to opt out by replying “STOP.”

The Commission’s grant of the exemption is limited to package delivery notifications to consumers’ wireless phones either by voice or text, and applies so long as those calls are not charged to the consumer recipient, including not being counted against the consumers’ plan limits on minutes or texts.

Our clients that engage in similar delivery notifications should be mindful of the conditions listed above and that any party who sends an autodialed or prerecorded package delivery notice to a wireless number must be in full accordance with these requirements in order to take advantage of the exemption from the TCPA restrictions.

FCC Considers Allowing Account Updates and Messages by Autodialer under TCPA

On February 12, 2014, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and American Gas Association (AGA) filed a petition for expedited declaratory ruling requesting the FCC to confirm, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), that providing a telephone number to an energy utility constitutes “prior express consent” to receive, at that number, non-telemarketing, informational calls related to the customer’s utility service, which are placed using an automatic telephone dialing system (“autodialer”) or an artificial or prerecorded voice . The FCC is accepting comments on the petition through April 10, 2015.

According to EEI3 and AGA, their members often need to contact their customers, for example, to: provide notification about planned or unplanned service outages; provide updates about outages or service restoration; ask for confirmation of service restoration or information about the lack of service; provide notification of meter work, tree-trimming, or other field work; or warn about payment or other problems that threaten service curtailment. With regard to such notifications, EEI and AGA state that their members have long used prerecorded message telephone calls and autodialers to reach their customers about service or other related issues. As utility customers increasingly have transitioned to using wireless phones, EEI and AGA note that their members also have transitioned to using new technologies for notifying their customers, including using wireless-only technologies, such as text messaging. Thus, according to EEI and AGA, its member utilities use automated texting technologies to notify customers who have provided wireless numbers with information on service or other related issues.

Our clients may be using various methods of notifying customers about account status and other issues for which they could not reach the customer via a live operator call. Our clients will want to size up whether their practices clearly comply with the TCPA, and if it is not clear they will want to seek clarification from the FCC.

Motorola Seeks Waiver of Public Coast Power Limits for Columbia County, NY

Motorola, on behalf of Columbia County, New York, is seeking a waiver of Rule Section 80.123(e) in order to permit the operation of mobile units with 50 watts transmitter power output (TPO) and 50 watts effective radiated power (ERP) on VHF Public Coast frequencies. Comments on this waiver request are due April 22, 2015 and Reply Comments are due May 8, 2015.

At the time Motorola first acquired this spectrum, the FCC waived its rules in order to allow Motorola to provide service to third parties, provided this service would satisfy public safety and other first responder needs. Later, the FCC amended its rules to allow VHF Public Coast licensees to provide service to units on land, provided that certain conditions were met — including (a) the use of equipment that complied with the technical limitations for Part 80 and (b) priority being given to marine communications.

Motorola now seeks to assign a portion of its VHF Public Coast spectrum to Columbia County, New York in order to support its land mobile public safety and homeland security operations. Motorola and the County have determined that a higher output power will be required and that this higher TPO will not cause harmful interference to maritime communications or otherwise adversely affect the priority of marine communications provided by co-channel licensees in geographic areas that will not be assigned to the County. In this regard, Motorola states that the County’s mobile units will utilize antennas with limited antenna gain and some line loss and that it believes that the potential for harmful interference would not be increased any more than it would for mobile units operating with the allowable 3 dB antenna gain. Further, Motorola notes that the +5dB contour for the County’s operations would not extend to or overlap major navigable water ways.

Montgomery County Challenges FCC’s Tower Siting Order

Montgomery County, Maryland has challenged the FCC’s October 21, 2014 Report and Order which imposed new rules on tower siting pursuant to Section 6409(a) of the Middle Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Montgomery County stated that the rules adopted in the Report and Order were “inconsistent with the United States Constitution; an unlawful interpretation of Section 6409(a) and other statutory provisions; arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion; and otherwise contrary to law”. The initial filing by Montgomery County did not provide any details concerning the substance of its claims, although conventional wisdom suggests that the 60-day shot-clock for local jurisdictions to act on tower siting requests is likely to be one of the main issues. The County did request that the Court find the FCC’s action to be unlawful and that the Report and Order be vacated and that the FCC be enjoined from enforcing the rules.

Because other appeals may have been filed in this proceeding, the Court that takes jurisdiction over the case will issue a briefing schedule. At that point, Montgomery County and others will be required to make their arguments in detail. The Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) has raised concerns about the Montgomery County challenge in a press release, stating: “PCIA is working closely with cities, counties, and municipalities to make the implementation of the FCC’s new wireless facility siting regulations smooth and efficient. The wireless infrastructure industry wants to reduce or eliminate, whenever possible, obstacles to realizing the extraordinary economic and technological potential of wireless broadband. We hope that this lawsuit will not detract from that goal, since PCIA supports the FCC’s rationale behind its Infrastructure Order and its guidelines for implementation.”

FCC Grants South Carolina Waiver of Construction Notification Deadline

South Carolina requested a waiver of the FCC’s Rules to permit the acceptance of its late-filed interim “substantial service” build out notification with respect to its statewide 700 MHz license. Under the FCC’s Rules, South Carolina was required to certify that it was either providing or prepared to provide substantial service to at least one-third of the population or territory by June 13, 2014, the five-year interim benchmark.

On December 12, 2014, South Carolina filed its interim substantial service certification. In its request for waiver, South Carolina explained that it missed the June 13, 2014 filing deadline due to a “misinterpretation” of the rules. In particular, South Carolina stated that it thought that it had been required to construct “base station infrastructure” but had not been able to do so because its conversion to P25 technology was incomplete. Nonetheless, South Carolina stated that it had programmed the six State License pairs into its portable trunked system and that those portable sites were operational prior to June 13, 2014.

In granting South Carolina’s waiver request, the FCC noted that the “underlying purpose of the substantial service requirement is to ensure efficient use of state channels including service to ‘rural, remote and insular areas.’” Additionally, Rule Section 90.529(c) states that a licensee will be deemed to be prepared to provide substantial service if it certifies that the radio system has been approved and funded by the deadline — which in this case, was June 13, 2014. As a result, the FCC found that South Carolina met its substantial service obligation because it had programmed the six paired channels into the State’s portable fixed trunked infrastructure and 16 channels into over 42,000 mobile and handheld radios statewide.

In taking its action on the South Carolina waiver request, the FCC emphasized that the purpose of the construction notification process is to verify construction and not to terminate authorizations where licensed facilities have been properly constructed on a timely basis.

FCC Sets Comment Deadlines for Proposal to Create 800 MHz Interstitial Channels

The FCC has established May 11, 2015 as the deadline for Comments and May 26, 2015 as the deadline for Reply Comments on its proposal to create new, full power 12.5 kHz offset channels in the 809-817/854-862 MHz band — also known as the 800 MHz Mid-Band. If adopted, the new rules would create the opportunity for up to 319 additional voice-grade channels for use by Public Safety, Business/Industrial, General Category and high-site SMR licensees. In particular, the FCC is looking for comments on who would be eligible for licensing on these channels, as well as technical licensing requirements for the channels.

In making this proposal, the FCC has made it clear that incumbent licensees must be safeguarded from new licensees on the interstitial channels. Currently, the Mid-Band is used by licensees in the public safety and Business /Industrial pools and high-site SMR licensees on an exclusive use basis, with co-channel licensing restricted by distance in order to prevent harmful interference. The FCC believes that by licensing the offset or interstitial channels, licensees could take advantage of advances in technology to improve spectral efficiency.

Interstitial Channels

The FCC is proposing to license the 12.5 kHz interstitial channels in the Mid-Band while continuing to license the standard 25 kHz channels within the same band. The FCC believes that it will be able to maintaining 25 kHz channel center frequencies, while licensing full power interstitial channels 12.5 kHz above and below the 25 kHz center frequency. The FCC believes that this would promote greater use of the 800 MHz Mid-Band without imposing greater costs on existing users.

The FCC is seeking comment as to whether the creation of interstitial channels will promote efficient use of the 800 MHz Mid-Band channels. Additionally, the FCC is also seeking comment on how the introduction of TETRA technology in the Mid-Band would impact its proposal to create 12.5 kHz interstitial channels. In this regard, the FCC recently amended Part 90 of its rules to permit the certification and use of TETRA equipment in the 800 MHz Mid-Band and ESMR band provided that it met the Adjacent Channel Power limits in the FCC's Rules.

Because of the potential for issues arising out of the ongoing 800 MHz rebanding effort, the FCC has proposed to delay any licensing of the interstitial channels in any NPSPAC region where the 800 MHz rebanding is not yet completed. As a result, the FCC would not license these channels until it released a Public Notice announcing the availability of these channels.

Currently, the FCC’s Rules prohibit high density ESMR cellularized operations in the 800 MHz Mid-Band in order to prevent the type of interference that resulted in the ongoing 800 MHz rebanding effort. The FCC is asking whether it would be desirable to introduce wideband technologies into the Mid-Band by allowing licensees to aggregate 25 KHz channels in this band. In this regard, UTC claims that broadband operations ( e.g., CDMA) would not increase the potential for harmful interference to narrowband incumbents over the potential for harmful interference that would be created by full power use of the interstitial channels.

UTC has also raised a concern that licensing of the 800 MHz interstitial channels in the Mid-Band could create the very same interference that led to the current 800 MHz rebanding effort that is still ongoing almost 13 years after the FCC recognized the problem in 2002. The FCC notes that the underlying cause of much of the interference was the result of high-power, low site systems creating near-far and intermodulation interference — neither of which the FCC believes would be caused by the typical high-site systems that would use the interstitial Mid-Band. Because of concerns, interested parties have requested interference protection criteria. Additionally, LMCC has developed an approved table of “Interstitial 800 MHz Coordination Procedures.” The FCC is asking whether this is sufficient.


The FCC’s current rules establish four eligibility pools or categories in the Mid-Band — General Category, Public Safety, Business/Industrial Land Transportation and high-site SMR. Within each category, the FCC has established specific eligibility requirements. The question is whether licensees that are eligible for each of these categories should be eligible for licensing on the 800 MHz Mid-Band Channels or whether the channels should be reserved for public safety use for three years, and then available to critical infrastructure licensees for the following two years before it is opened up to all eligibles. This is similar to the structure that the FCC has adopted for the 800 MHz spectrum that has been released by Sprint following rebanding.

The FCC is also asking whether public safety licensees should receive preferential treatment or exclusive access to the 800 MHz Mid-Band interstitial channels since the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 requires public safety licensees to relocate from the UHF T-Band (470-512 MHz). More specifically, the FCC asks whether incumbent public safety T-Band licensees should be afforded preferential or exclusive access to the interstitial channels within their geographic area.

Authorized Bandwidth/Emission Mask

The FCC is proposing to maintain the current authorized 22 kHz bandwidth on the standard 25 kHz Mid-Band channels while establishing an authorized bandwidth of 11.25 kHz on the 12.5 kHz interstitial channels. The FCC is seeking comment on this proposal.

The FCC is proposing to require licensees on the 800 MHz Mid-Band interstitial channels to use Emission Mask “D” — which is the same emission mask used on interstitial channels in other Part 90 frequency bands. The Emission Mask “D” was designed to allow licensees operating on 12.5 kHz bandwidth channels to employ various modulation techniques while offering interference protection to licensees operation on the adjacent 25 kHz channels. The FCC is seeking comment on whether Emission Mask “D” would provide sufficient protection to limit the potential for harmful interference to licensees operating on the adjacent 25 kHz wideband channels.

Comments are due May 11, 2015 ; Reply Comments are due May 26, 2015 .

This newsletter is not intended to provide legal advice. Those interested in more information should contact the firm. For additional information, please contact Hal Mordkofsky at 202-828-5520 or .

Voluntary Newsletter Supporters By Donation

Kansas City


Premium Newsletter Supporter


gcs logo

Premium Newsletter Supporter

Canyon Ridge Communications

canyon ridge

Premium Newsletter Supporter

ProPage Inc.


Newsletter Supporter

Metropolitan Communications


Newsletter Supporter


Incyte Capital Holdings LLC
Dallas, Texas

Newsletter Supporter

Le Réseau Mobilité Plus
Montreal, Quebec


Newsletter Supporter

Communication Specialists

communication specialists

Newsletter Supporter

Cook Paging

cook paging

Premium Newsletter Supporter



Premium Newsletter Supporter

Citipage Ltd.
Edmonton, Alberta


Newsletter Supporter

Friends & Colleagues

Ira Wiesenfeld, P.E.

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

black line

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

Tel/Fax: 972-960-9336
Cell: 214-707-7711
7711 Scotia Dr.
Dallas, TX 75248-3112

Ira Wiesenfeld, P.E.

Consulting Alliance

Brad Dye, Ron Mercer, Allan Angus, Vic Jackson, and Ira Wiesenfeld are friends and colleagues who work both together and independently, on wireline and wireless communications projects.

Click here left arrow for a summary of their qualifications and experience. Each one has unique abilities. We would be happy to help you with a project, and maybe save you some time and money.

Consulting Alliance

Wireless Network Planners

Wireless Network Planners
Wireless Specialists

R.H. (Ron) Mercer
217 First Street
East Northport, NY 11731

ron mercer
Telephone: 631-786-9359

Wireless Network Planners

Prism Paging

white line


white line


  • VoIP telephone access — eliminate interconnect expense
  • Call from anywhere — Prism SIP Gateway allows calls from PSTN and PBX
  • All the Features for Paging, Voice-mail, Text-to-Pager, Wireless and DECT phones
  • Prism Inet, the new IP interface for TAP, TNPP, SNPP, SMTP — Industry standard message input
  • Direct Connect to NurseCall, Assisted Living, Aged Care, Remote Monitoring, Access Control Systems


From:Philip Leavitt
Subject: What do you think?
Date:March 31, 2015 at 12:24:56 AM CDT
To:Brad Dye


It has gotten to the point where 7 out of 10 cell phone calls I receive are spoofed with fake caller I.D. information. This is being increasingly common on my land line also.

Granted I have limited knowledge of how the telephone systems work, I believe the phone companies, both cellular and landline have the technology to instantly determine whether the caller ID is being spoofed (isn’t a working or legitimate number). What must be done to get them to prohibit the processing of calls with spoofed caller I.D.?

This would significantly reduce or eliminate the fake I.R.S. calls, the fake Microsoft repair your computer calls and allow no call list recipients to know who called them and file challenges or damage requests.
The phone companies are now enablers and should act or be held to account.

What do your readers/subscribers have to contribute on this topic?  I’m sure FCC employees read your newsletter. Might they respond with a suggestion on how to force this issue?


The best example is when you miss a call and attempt to call back and get the ‘this number is no longer in service’ or similar message. It’s bad enough when you get an unwelcome solicitation and ask for their number and it’s blocked and when you ask or try to get the number they hang up on you.

The no call list is unenforced.


EDITOR : Please join in this discussion — if you would like to express your opinion. I will publish your response in the LETTERS TO THE EDITOR section. You can send me an e-mail by clicking here:   left arrow
Specialists in ICOM, Motorola, Bendix-King, Zetron,
Unication & other two way & paging products
Philip C Leavitt
Leavitt Communications
7508 N Red Ledge Drive
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253
Skype ID:

From:Frank J. Mercurio
Subject:  FCC to reinstate Morse Code test
Date:April 1, 2015
To:Brad Dye

April 1 , 2015

Washington, D.C. — April 1, 2015 — Today, the Federal Communications Co Commission (Commission or FCC) approved Report and Order 14-987af which reinstates the Morse Code test for General Class and Amateur Extra Class licensees.

“Eliminating the Morse Code test was a big mistake” admits Dottie Dasher, the FCC's director of examinations. “We now realize that being able to send and receive Morse Code is an essential skill for radio amateurs. As they say, it really does get through when other modes can't.”

Not only will new applicants have to take the test, but General Class licensees who have never passed a code test will have one year to pass a 5-wpm code test. Similarly, Amateur Extra class licensees that never passed a code test will have one year to pass a 13-wpm test. Those amateurs that fail to pass the test will face revocation of their operating privileges. Materials for administering the examinations will be distributed to Volunteer Examiner Coordinators by the end of April, so that they can begin the testing on May 1, 2015.

“This isn't going to be one of those silly multiple-choice type tests,” noted Dasher. “We are going to be sending five-character random code groups, just like we did in the old days. And, applicants will have to prove that they can send, too, using a poorly adjusted straight key.”

Technician Class licensees will not be required to take a Morse Code test, nor will a test be required for new applicants. “We discussed it,” said Dasher, “but decided that since most Techs can't even figure out how to program their HTs, requiring them to learn Morse Code seemed like cruel and unusual punishment.”

When asked what other actions we might see from the FCC, Dasher hinted that in the future applicants taking the written exam may be required to draw circuit diagrams, such as Colpitts oscillators and diode ring mixers, once again. “We're beginning to think that if an applicant passes an amateur radio license exam it should mean that he or she actually knows something.” she said.

For further information, contact James X. Shorts, Assistant Liaison to the Deputy Chief of Public Relations for the FCC.


The Wireless Messaging News

Current member or former member of these organizations.

Best regards,
brad's signature
Newsletter Editor
Licensed 57 years

Brad Dye
P.O. Box 266
Fairfield, IL 62837 USA

mensa member

If you are curious about why I joined Mensa, click here .

U.S. Navy

radioman second class
Second Class
Petty Officer



A Public Library of
animated gif
Paging Information


European Mobile Messaging Association
emma logo
Former Board Member

radio club paraguay
Radio Club
of Paraguay

Quarter Century qcwa k9iqy
Wireless Association

Back To Paging
Still The Most Reliable Wireless Protocol For Emergencies!

Skype: braddye
Twitter: @BradDye1
Telephone: +1-618-599-7869
Wireless: Consulting page
Paging: Home Page
Marketing & Engineering Papers
K9IQY: Ham Radio Page

Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers

wireless logo medium

Radio Club
radio club of america
of America

I am a person in
long-term recovery.


Joke for Carpenters:

I returned a box of nails to the hardware store because they had the heads on the wrong ends. They said, “The heads aren't on the wrong ends you dummy. These nails are for the other side of the house.”


Germanwings co-pilot accelerated plane during descent

Investigators work near debris from the Germanwings crash near Seyne-les-Alpes. Photograph: Reuters

The co-pilot of the doomed Germanwings flight 9525 repeatedly accelerated the plane as he used the automatic pilot to descend into the Alps, the French air accident investigation agency has said.

The new detail from the BEA agency is based on an initial reading of the plane’s black box data recorder, found blackened and buried at the crash site on Thursday.

Source: The Guardian

Home Page Directory Consulting Newsletters Products Reference Glossary Send e-mail