Emergency Broadcast System: Is this a test?

• 
• 

This Is a Test. This Is Only a Test.

Stephanie Worden

June 20, 2013

Mobile

This post previously appeared in OtherWords.

In the early morning hours of April 19, some residents of Watertown, Mass., received an automated phone call telling them to “shelter in place” while the suspected Boston marathon bomber roamed the neighborhood.

The system worked — to a degree. One homeowner ultimately realized a bleeding man, who turned out to be Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, had holed up in the boat on his property. The Watertown man alerted the authorities, and the suspect went into custody.

But why didn’t everyone in Watertown get the call? Because our emergency communications system is flawed.

The federal government began building official emergency notification systems in the 1950s. The most recognizable of these notifications is the Emergency Broadcast System, with its familiar bands of color spanning the television screen and the recognizable drone of repeated beeps on the radio announcing: “This is a test. This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System.”

We can no longer rely on TV and radio as the primary means of mass emergency communication. In Boston, danger arose at night while people were sleeping, their radios and TVs turned off. And in the information age, a growing number of people don’t access TV through traditional cable news or local broadcasting stations. Many of us get the news through other media.

The next logical step would be to meet people where they are. That means using our nation’s telecommunications infrastructure as a platform for emergency alerts. Nearly every American has a landline phone or a mobile wireless device, such as a smartphone. These gizmos are becoming the preferred medium for how we connect with each other and the world at large.

We already have the technology to deliver mass phone calls to large populations. Some reverse-911 systems are quite sophisticated, and can send calls to all landlines in very specific locations. But Americans are migrating away from landlines in favor of wireless. If you don’t have a landline, you’re out of range — and possibly out of luck.

Furthermore, many reverse-911 systems don’t work via Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP. VoIP routes call traffic over Internet Protocol networks rather than traditional telephone networks.

These technological limitations are a huge concern, since the most recent data indicate that less than half of American households have a traditional landline phone. One in three relies on wireless phones, while another quarter has VoIP landlines.

When promoting these reverse-911 systems, providers tout subscribers’ ability to self-register their phone numbers. While this is certainly a step in the right direction, the opt-in model is confusing for consumers.

And to complicate matters, some of our country’s most powerful communications companies are pushing to completely eliminate state and federal oversight of their services.

If policymakers go along with this grand plan, fewer people will have access to critical services like reverse 911, and no regulatory agency will have the authority to do anything about it.

So what’s the best way to reach people during an emergency?

Our leaders must encourage innovation and get the government to adapt to new and emerging technologies.

There are laws on the books about wireless emergency communications. The Warning, Alert, and Response Network (WARN) Act established Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs), which are text-like warning messages that are 90 characters long and are sent in intervals.

But the only devices that are technologically equipped to receive these messages are high-priced smartphones. Those who can’t afford them won’t be able to receive emergency notifications.

And commercial wireless service providers aren’t even required to distribute Wireless Emergency Alerts: Participation in the program is completely voluntary. Low-income and senior populations tend to subscribe to phone plans from smaller wireless carriers that are less likely to offer WEAs.

This all adds up to a communications industry that relies on the public airwaves but isn’t required to alert the public in times of crisis.

As people cut their landlines and transition away from traditional TV and radio, we need effective emergency notification systems that will work on all mobile devices. The FCC should speed up the transition to mobile notification systems and pressure the industry to ensure that these systems work on all cellphones and landlines.

 

Report: U.S. Telecom Enjoys Wireless Lift

by Ed Sutherland, internetnews.com

February 16th 2006

After taking a nosedive in recent years, telecom spending enjoyed a 9 percent boost in 2005.

Increased wireless demand, network expansion and broadband Internet access was responsible for the $856.9 billion hike, according to the Telecommunications Industry Association.

The upward trend is expected to climb to 10.2 percent growth in 2006, leveling off at 9 percent annual growth, reaching $1.2 trillion in telecom sales between 2006 to 2009, according to the industry group's annual Market Review and Forecast report.

"The U.S. is back on an upward path," said Matthew Flanigan, TIA president, in a statement. The 2000 and 2003 period were dark times for the industry, which saw spending on networking fall more than 70 percent.

That turnaround is fueled by renewed demand for fiber-optic cable. Fiber's comeback shocked Arthur Gruen of Wilkossky and Gruen Associates, the report's author.

During the heat of the dot-com boom, companies envisioned network expansion and fiber as the answer. When those networks never materialized, the market for fiber also vanished.

Today the telecom industry "is looking at fiber for different purposes," Gruen toldinternetnews.com. Rather than as network backhaul, fiber is getting more personal. Verizon and AT&T see fiber as the path to bringing television to homes, competing with cable. But any growth will be modest and firmly planted in reality.

"Fiber revenue in 2006 will climb to more than half that of 2000 and will be a catalyst for growth rather than decline over the next four years," according to the report. Revenue from fiber equipment and facilities will reach $20.9 billion this year and experience 5.2 percent yearly growth for 2006 to 2009.

Part of the need for fiber will be to support growth of wireless service and equipment, according to Gruen. "Telephone calls are only a minor part" of increasing demand for wireless phones, according to Gruen. As music, video and data migrate to wireless devices, simple phones are "becoming mobile entertainment centers."

Revenue from wireless services increased 14.8 percent in 2005 to $118 billion. Contrast the double-digit growth of wireless with a 1.4 percent decrease in landline revenue. This trend means "wireline guys are gone," Gruen says.

But the future of landline revenue isn't totally black. As wireless adoption in the U.S. reaches 90 percent, revenue will slow. Wireless companies will need to shift from obtaining new customers to offering more services, according to Gruen.

For landline firms, the current slide will flatten by 2007, and revenue will begin to increase by 2009. The gains will come as landline services begin offering bundled local and long-distance services, as well as flat-rate pricing.

Dial-up Internet access has breathed its last breath, according to Gruen. Broadband reached 41.2 million U.S. subscribers in 2005, up from 4.5 million in 2000.

Fueling the transition from dial-up is a dizzying array of discounts from landline carriers and cable firms. Almost 75 percent of subscribers will use broadband for Internet access by 2009, according to the TIA study.

U.S. telecom growth was topped by success internationally, according to the report. International telecom spending rose 11.4 percent in 2005, compared to the previous year. Middle East and Africa led the way, posting an 18.4 percent increase amounting to $66.7 billion.

"The telecom market has returned to its roots," Gruen said. After a tumultuous start, the decade will see equilibrium as broadband dominates the industry. What can today's findings tell us about the path ahead?

"The drivers today won't be the drivers in five years."

Sprint Sucks: Looking to New Verizons

September 20, 2000

Stacey Koplin

Product Manager

Consumer Broadcast Group

http://www.consumerbroadcastgroup.com

 

 

RE:  Sprint PCS Complaint No.-- WBB CN 224188

 

 

Dear Stacey:

 

Thank you for checking on the status of my complaint.  Persistence is truly a virtue when it comes to consumer advocacy! 

 

Thanks to your letter, I finally received a call from customer service on Monday morning, May 15, 2000.  It became clear almost immediately that the CSR had only one concern—that I remove my complaint from the Internet.  She did not want to address my concern about retailers selling faulty equipment or inconsistent store policies. In an effort to protect Sprint from any liability, she told me the return policy changed on May 15.  

 

Since my problem occurred before that change went into effect, I told her this argument was irrelevant to my situation since I had purchased the Sprint PCS telephone before that policy was changed. and therefore, should be “grandfathered” in. 

Clearly, the CSR had no interest in resolving any of the problems I was having with my telephone service. She contradicted herself on several occasions regarding Sprint PCS policies.  Yet even still, local retailers were enforcing of neither of the two policies.

 

Despite having developed an extensive case history with this company since December 16, 1999, she insisted that it was impossible since she had no record of it. She told me that there was no record of any complaint on file, and the burden of proof was shifted onto my shoulders if I wanted them to act towards resolving the problem.  Since I have communicated with Sprint both over the telephone and in writing, I was annoyed that I had to explain everything to yet another person who clearly did not want to solve the problem. 

 

Throughout the conversation, she attempted to steer the conversation away from the billing problems only to try to convince me to remove my complaint from the Internet. She told me told me to go to the nearest Sprint retail store and tell them to fax all of the documentation for me, which I did several weeks ago.

 

After 48 minutes of this, my call was dropped (this happens quite frequently) and despite my advance warning about this frequent occurrence, the CSR did not make any attempt to call me back.   To date, I have not received any response regarding the complaint I first filed online in January of 2000. 

Again, I was unable to get the name of someone in the legal department or a supervisor in charge, and she clearly has no intention of following through on with my complaint. After speaking with other Sprint PCS customers, and reading an article in the newspaper describing similar cases, I do not feel that the problems I have encountered with the retailer or Sprint PCS are unique in any way.   Furthermore, until someone higher up in the company takes notice of the inefficient structure of the Customer Service Department, I have little faith that this will be resolved.

If Sprint has no intention in setting standard policies for retailers representing PCS equipment and services, then who is ultimately responsible for the sale of damaged equipment and bogus policies?  If Sprint chooses to make contracts with unreliable retailers and service providers, it should not be at the cost of consumers.

 

Aside from being a bad business practice, it is ridiculous to have a CSR department that does not keep track of the volume of incoming calls and complaints.  Due the random assignment of incoming calls into various regional dial-in centers, it is impossible to speak to the same person twice.  This problem is compounded by CSRs are unable to communicate effectively with one another.

 

Perhaps the pending merger with MCI Worldcom will demonstrate enough market power to warrant intervention from the courts and other regulatory agencies in keeping with other public utilities.  Until then, Sprint has a duty to maintain a certain degree of standards that is applied in a uniform fashion to all retailers.   

 

As a major player in the new economy, all wireless service providers should be required by law to formulate and enforce standard company policies.  They should actively seek out those who misrepresent their products and services, and respect consumers enough to investigate fraudulent billing activity and retailers who misrepresent Sprint PCS equipment and services.

 

Unless this company makes some systematic changes to their procedures for handling consumer complaints and services, then I do not think I will be the only one looking to new Verizons!  

 

Thank you again for your assistance! Please contact me should you hear from Sprint PCS in the near future.

Sincerely, 

Elyssa Durant

 

 

Cc:  [omitted, Esq.]

        [Representative ______, Brooklyn,

 

 

Right now my life is one learning experience after another...  
by the end of the week, I should be a Genius!

Comcast and Verizon’s Phony Free-Speech Claim

by Susan Crawford, mobile.bloomberg.com

May 29th 2013 5:00 PM

Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wrote this week that the First Amendment shields Comcast Corp. from Congress’s authority to ensure the free flow of information across the basic network connections it provides.

Kavanaugh’s assertion accompanied a ruling by the three-judge panel that reversed a Federal Communications Commission action against Comcast. Although the other two judges on the court did not endorse Kavanaugh’s First Amendment argument, it will come up again later this year -- in a case brought against the FCC by Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)

The court should resist this reasoning, or risk trivializing the freedom of speech that the First Amendment truly protects.

This week’s case, Comcast Corp. (CMCSA)v. FCC, concerned the 1992 Cable Act, enacted at a time when policy makers rightly worried that cable operators would favor the channels that they increasingly controlled. The statute directed the FCC to prevent cable companies from discriminating among programming providers if the effect of such discrimination is to “unreasonably restrain the ability of an unaffiliated video programming vendor to compete fairly.”

Comcast is both the largest high-speedInternet-access provider and the biggest American video distributor, and faces little competition within its territories for the wires it installs in American homes. At the same time, it owns a controlling interest in Golf Channel and NBC Sports Network, which Comcast distributes as part of its most popular “Expanded Basic” and “Digital Starter” bundles. Meanwhile, the company relegates Tennis Channel, a competitor, to its far-less-popular “Sports Tier,” which focuses on sports programming and requires subscribers to pay additional fees.

Other cable distributors mimic Comcast’s treatment of Tennis Channel, which claims that this prevents it from reaching the 40 million-subscriber threshold required to attract national advertising. The FCC agreed last year that Comcast’s activities amounted to unlawful discrimination.

Free Speech

In its appeal of the FCC’s ruling, Comcast wrapped itself in the mantle of the First Amendment, claiming that it is a speaker akin to the New York Times. The FCC’s order that Comcast carry specific content to a specific audience amounted to an unconstitutional intrusion, the company said. In his concurring opinion this week, Judge Kavanaugh was strongly sympathetic to this claim, saying “the FCC cannot tell Comcast how to exercise its editorial discretion about what networks to carry any more than the Government can tell Amazon or Politics and Prose or Barnes & Noble what books to sell; or tell the Wall Street Journal or Politico or the Drudge Report what columns to carry.”

Congress, though, has long distinguished basic information transmission facilities from newspapers; there is a sharp difference between a facility that allows someone else’s speech to be transmitted, and expression itself. Indeed, all of American communications policy is based on this premise.

In enacting the 1992 Cable Act, Congress was concerned that the operator of the single wire into a home would have the power and incentive to pick and choose among sources of speech and thereby constrain Americans’ access to information. No one watching a particular channel would think that Comcast, by virtue of transmitting it, was “speaking.” And even if Comcast is, in some blunt way, “speaking” through its choice of channels, the rules against discrimination aren’t meant to further the “message” of Tennis Channel. The government just wants fair competition.

In a separate case before the same court, Verizon is making a similar claim. According to the company, an FCC rule that keeps an Internet-access network provider from blocking its customers’ access to any content violates its First Amendment right to control the speech it transmits. The rule amounts to compelled speech, and is thus as unconstitutional as a law ordering a newspaper what to publish. Verizon claims the right to edit the Internet with absolute discretion.

Closed Market

Hundreds of millions of Americans entrust giant, private digital-network providers with their First Amendment-protected speech. These providers -- principally Comcast and Time Warner Cable Inc. over wires, and Verizon and AT&T Inc. (T) in wireless -- have acted in parallel to exclude competition in their individual geographic and product marketplaces. At this point, it would be extraordinarily difficult for any new entrant to achieve the scale it would take to cut into the incumbents’ profits.

As a result, the country that invented the Internet is lagging behind other nations; only people in Mexico, Israel, Chile, New Zealandand Greece pay more than Americans for each megabit per second of Internet access, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Now, the same companies are claiming First Amendment immunity from any congressional oversight. Other enormous industries have seen the appeal of this argument: Last year, the pharmaceutical industry successfully argued that the First Amendment shielded it from prosecution for promoting off-label use of a drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

For the Internet-access providers, this implausible argument must not stand: If business decisions were constitutionally protected speech, every government regulation would be presumptively unconstitutional. Surely the First Amendment wasn’t intended to be used as a shield to protect power in the marketplace.

(Susan Crawford, a contributor to Bloomberg View and a professor at the Cardozo School of Law, is the author of “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age.” The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this article: Susan P. Crawford at scrawford@scrawford.net or@scrawford on Twitter

Comcast Defeats FCC Order

Comcast Defeats FCC Order on Distributing Tennis Channel

by Tom Schoenberg, mobile.bloomberg.com

May 28th 2013 12:02 PM

Comcast Corp. (CMCSA)’s decision to carry the Tennis Channel as premium programming was a business judgment that didn’t discriminate against programming owned by others, a U.S. appeals court ruled, overturning a regulator’s order to include the channel in lower-cost packages.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today unanimously rejected a Federal Communications Commission mandate to make the Tennis Channel more widely available on its cable systems, a demand the largest U.S. cable company said would force it to pay hundreds of millions of dollars more for the programming.

“Without showing any benefit for Comcast from incurring the additional fees for assigning Tennis a more advantageous tier, the commission has not provided evidence that Comcast discriminated against Tennis on the basis of affiliation,” Circuit JudgeStephen Williams wrote.

Comcast sued the FCC after the regulator last year required it to distribute the Tennis Channel to the same number of subscribers who receive two sports networks owned by the cable company, the Golf Channel and the NBC Sports Network. The FCC also assessed a $375,000 penalty against Philadelphia-based Comcast.

Investors in the closely held Tennis Channel include Apollo Partners, Bain Capital Ventures, Battery Ventures, CCMP Capital Advisors, Columbia Capital, DND Capital Partners LLC and ex-players Andre Agassiand Pete Sampras, according to the channel’s website.

Comcast Comment

“Tennis Channel received exactly the carriage it bargained for and agreed to,”Sena Fitzmaurice, a spokeswoman for Comcast, said in an e-mailed statement. She said the company was pleased with the court’s decision.

Neil Grace, an FCC spokesman, declined to comment on the decision.

The Tennis Channel, which intervened in the case, said it would seek additional review of the appeals court’s decision, according to Eric Abner, a spokesman for the channel.

“We believe that it is the obligation of the FCC to act in the public interest to ensure a diverse marketplace of voices, as mandated by Congress when it introduced the Cable Act,” Abner said in an e-mailed statement.

Bloomberg LP, the parent company ofBloomberg News, filed a brief in the case backing the FCC and the Tennis Channel.

The case is Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Federal Communications Commission, 12-01337, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Washington).

To contact the reporter on this story: Tom Schoenberg in Washington attschoenberg@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha atmhytha@bloomberg.net

How AT&T Is Planning to Rob Americans of an Open Public Telco Network | Wired Opinion | Wired.com

AT&T has a sneaky plan.

It wants to exploit a loophole in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s rules to kill what remains of the public telecommunications network — and all of the consumer protections that go with it. It’s the final step in AT&T’s decade-long effort to end all telecommunications regulation, and the simplicity of the plan highlights a dysfunction unique to the American regulatory system.

AT&T and other big telecom carriers want to replace the portions of their networks that still use circuit-switching technology with equipment that uses Internet Protocol (IP) to route voice and data traffic. But because the FCC previously decided that it has no direct authority over communications networks that use IP, this otherwise routine technological upgrade could lead to a state of total deregulation.

S. Derek Turner

A telecommunications policy expert, S. Derek Turner is the research director at Free Press, a nonpartisan organization advocating for universal and affordable internet access, diverse media ownership, and vibrant public media. It officially opposes AT&T’s petition to the FCC.

We are already living with the consequences of the FCC IP decision: an uncompetitive broadband market. Our broadband providers enjoy the kinds of high profit margins that would make a 19th-century robber baron blush. And our ability to use these networks to communicate openly and freely is under constant assault. Meanwhile, consumers in other countries not only have better access, but they pay far less for far better services.

But there are large portions of the public telecom network that don’t use IP, and that are still subject to varying degrees of regulatory oversight — including traditional landlines, alarm circuits, and many of the “special access” connections that carry voice and data traffic from cellular towers.

Now AT&T wants approval to convert all of this to an all-IP system. And because of the FCC’s flawed view of IP, this move would jettison all of the public interest protections that govern common carriers like AT&T. (The centuries-old “common carriage” concept applied to entities like railroads, shippers, and telecoms that transport goods often using public rights-of-way; since these functions are critical to commerce, common carriers are usually regulated even if they don’t operate in monopoly markets).

The immediate consumer impact of AT&T’s proposal would be swift and severe:

Higher prices. Remember what happened after California partially deregulated AT&T in 2006? The price of some basic voice services tripled. AT&T wants to make this happen everywhere. Also, the ability of many smaller wireless carriers to offer competitively priced services is based on specific regulations that prevent special access providers like AT&T and Verizon from charging exorbitant rates. These protections against monopoly prices will disappear if AT&T gets its way.

Service disruptions. Brinksmanship between AT&T and smaller wireless carriers that use the public network to transport their own traffic would lead to telecom blackouts. Just look at how cable customers are held hostage in carriage spats between cable providers and content owners. The rules that require carriers to get networks back online after outages would also be history if the FCC approves AT&T’s petition.

Inequality and discrimination. Seniors, low-income families, and rural residents — all of whom are more likely to rely on fixed-line voice services or dial-up internet access — would especially feel the pinch. Carriers that are now required to offer universal service will be free to redline poor neighborhoods and disconnect consumers at will. Elderly grandmothers living on fixed incomes rely on rate-regulated landlines to stay connected, but they need not worry: AT&T has an expensive wireless plan they can purchase instead.

It’s bad enough that we’re on the verge of losing all of the consumer protections that keep the price of basic voice service reasonable and ensure the most vulnerable stay connected. But by putting the last nail in the coffin of the public telecommunications network, AT&T’s plan poses an even greater threat to the future of American innovation and internet freedom.

This is because the internet itself would not exist if it were not for a delicate balance of public policies that made sure the public telecommunications network was an open platform: Anyone could use it as a building block for innovation.

Before the FCC adopted rules to keep the public network open, companies like AT&T were able to prohibit customers from using the network for anything other than what it approved. (We wouldn’t have been allowed to have answering machines, for example, if AT&T didn’t approve them.) Thanks to the FCC’s intervention then and continuing oversight, Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf didn’t need AT&T’s permission to connect computers. They simply used the public network as a platform to launch the IP technology that led to the internet we all use today.

When Congress updated the Communications Act in 1996, lawmakers reinforced this clear separation between devices on the edges of networks and the wires that connect them. And this approach worked: Consumers had choices for cheap long distance. There were dozens of dial-up ISPs, and even multiple options for DSL and cable modem service. Prices dropped, quality improved, and investment soared.

While the rest of the world followed this American blueprint to great success, our captive regulators dismantled the competitive framework, replacing it with nothing more than the vain hope the market would sort it all out. So it should come as no surprise that the rest of the world is busy undertaking its own transition to all-IP networks without threatening the basic consumer protections that ensure universal access to essential communications services.

We stand at the edge of a cliff, and AT&T is eager to jump. It’s the FCC’s own bad decisions that led us to this cliff. But it’s not too late to step back. In updating its rules for an all-IP world, the FCC shouldn’t let the carriers kill off the public telecom network. We can protect consumer rights and free-market commerce without sacrificing the infrastructure’s open nature and its potential as a platform for innovation.

via wired.com

Posted from DailyDDoSe