Message-ID: <e8ae7622-542f-a642-ec05-9f96a909454e@ionary.com>
Date: 1 Apr 2022 08:52:33 -0400
From: "Fred Goldstein" <fQRMgoldstein@ionary.com>
Subject: Re: FirstNet is Connecting More First Responders Across
South Carolina
On 3/31/2022 11:39 AM, Bill Horne wrote:
> ...
> Perhaps you will be able to make more sense out of it. My circuit
> breaker has tripped.
>
> Bill
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> "An official website of the United States government"
>
> What's the news? AT&T is America's public safety communications
> partner. In the nearly 5 years since we were selected by the First
> Responder Network Authority (FirstNet Authority) to build and operate
> FirstNet(r), we have moved quickly to bring more coverage, boost
> capacity and drive new capabilities for South Carolina first
> responders and the communities they serve - rural or urban.
I'm not exactly an uncritical fan of FirstNet, having been fairly
close to the process that created it, and having worked with real
public safety communications. There was a real mess in the 2005-2009
time frame, not worth recounting here, and it basically ended with
AT&T picking up the pieces. But the idea is not bad and it could be
useful.
FirstNet is a "broadband" public safety network intended to complement
the "narrowband" voice walkie-talkie systems that first responders
(police, fire, EMS) typically carry. It's basically a 700 MHz LTE
network, where the 700 MHz band has good indoor and cluttered-area
coverage. The idea is that AT&T gets to use the spectrum for
commercial (cellular) customers, but reserves and prioritizes its use
for first responders when they need it. FirstNet's customers, the
first responders, pay for the service, which allows them to download
images and video, which could help them in their front line work.
Not all first responders buy into this; real-world police in many
places, for instance, carry ordinary smartphones, which generally work
fine. But in some places where cell coverage is spotty, FirstNet gives
AT&T an incentive to build out, and it gives local governments an
incentive to permit the necessary towers to be built. Whether that's
good or bad is a matter of perspective...
Message-ID: <20220331205014.184A679A@telecom2018.csail.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:50:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: Bill Horne <malQRMassimilation@gmail.com>
Subject: Google Fiber Subcontractors Celebrate Blowout NLRB Election
Win
90% of workers vote for union representation, ending hard-fought campaign
Workers become first unionized Google Fiber workers and the first
recognized bargaining unit of AWU-CWA since union's 2021
launch.
(Kansas City, Mo.) - Today, the National Labor Relations Board
announced that in a 9-1 vote the Google Fiber subcontract workers with
BDS Connected Solutions in Kansas City, Mo., overwhelmingly won their
election for a union, after a many-month campaign that dealt with a
continuous union-busting effort from management. A hundred percent of
the unit voted in the election.
The unit is represented by AWU-CWA local 1400, part of Communications
Workers of America (CWA), and affiliated with CODE-CWA.
These are the first Google Fiber workers to successfully unionize and
the first recognized bargaining unit of AWU-CWA. Meaning that the unit
will be the first group of AWU-CWA workers with bargaining rights in
the country. Workers include retail associates at multiple Google
Fiber retail locations in Kansas City, Mo.
https://cwa-union.org/news/releases/google-fiber-subcontractors-celebrate-blowout-nlrb-election-win
--
(Please remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
Message-ID: <20220331201151.59A6479A@telecom2018.csail.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:11:51 +0000 (UTC)
From: Bill Horne <malQRMassimilation@gmail.com>
Subject: TCPA Fax Exception: Saving Your Business From Liability
by David O. Klein
While not as popular as they used to be, faxes still provide
telemarketers a worthwhile avenue to find potential customers. But
using faxes to advertise is not a risk-free proposition. The Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") restricts the ability to send
marketing faxes, in part, by requiring prior consent from the
recipient. What happens if someone sends a fax without prior consent
(i.e., unsolicited faxes)? The sender may be held liable for damages,
unless it can show that it complies with the TCPA fax exception. The
recent case of Bruce E. Katz, M.D., P.C. v. Dale Pharmacy & Surgical,
Inc. helps illustrate the point.
https://tinyurl.com/3e326t4m
--
(Please remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
Message-ID: <20220331200228.1476C79A@telecom2018.csail.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:02:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: Bill Horne <malQRMassimilation@gmail.com>
Subject: Did A Prolific TCPA Plaintiffs' Attorney Just Argue That
The Statute Does Not Regulate Text Messaging?
Did A Prolific TCPA Plaintiffs' Attorney Just Argue That The Statute
Does Not Regulate Text Messaging? The Hearing Transcript Says "Yes."
by Daniel Blynn
For years, the plaintiffs' bar has been filing Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) class actions alleging the receipt of
unsolicited, autodialed text messages. But the TCPA's autodialer
prohibition explicitly refers to "calls," not text messages, whereas
other provisions of the statute, namely the Truth in Caller ID Act,
expressly extend to both "text messaging service[s]." In fact, that
section of the TCPA even includes a definition for "text message."
Nonetheless, based on dicta from a decade-old Supreme Court decision
addressing whether federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction with
state courts over TCPA claims, Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC,
the plaintiffs' bar regularly includes in its autodialer complaints an
allegation that text messages are calls for purposes of applying and
construing the TCPA. During the December 2020 oral argument before the
Supreme Court in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, Justice Clarence Thomas
questioned "why a text message is considered a call under the TCPA" in
the first place. But the issue was not before the Supreme Court; nor
did the Court address it in its decision.
https://tinyurl.com/2vet3eh5
--
(Please remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
Message-ID: <20220402002841.GA26037@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2022 20:28:41 -0400
From: Telecom Digest Moderator
<telecomdigestsubmissions@remove-this.telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Re: FirstNet is Connecting More First Responders Across
South Carolina
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 08:52:33AM -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> On 3/31/2022 11:39 AM, Bill Horne wrote:
> >...
> >Perhaps you will be able to make more sense out of it. My circuit
> >breaker has tripped.
> >
> >Bill
> >
> >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> >"An official website of the United States government"
> >
> >What's the news? AT&T is America's public safety communications
> >partner. In the nearly 5 years since we were selected by the First
> >Responder Network Authority (FirstNet Authority) to build and operate
> >FirstNet(r), we have moved quickly to bring more coverage, boost
> >capacity and drive new capabilities for South Carolina first
> >responders and the communities they serve - rural or urban.
>
> I'm not exactly an uncritical fan of FirstNet, having been fairly
> close to the process that created it, and having worked with real
> public safety communications. There was a real mess in the 2005-2009
> time frame, not worth recounting here, and it basically ended with
> AT&T picking up the pieces. But the idea is not bad and it could be
> useful.
One of the things that happens when I take a vacation from the Digest
is that I come back to work with "new eyes" - I notice things that
weren't grabbing my attention before, and I've just realized that I
don't know as much about radio and Cellular technology as I had
thought I did.
Ergo, I'll ask you to give us more detail about the underlying
technology behind FIrstNet
®, and to explain some of the acronyms
that have been mentioned. I hate to do it, but I'll (respectfully)
request an "Executive Overview" that gives a layman's view of the
possibilities and problems.
> FirstNet is a "broadband" public safety network intended to complement
> the "narrowband" voice walkie-talkie systems that first responders
> (police, fire, EMS) typically carry.
OK, here's my first double-take: my only experience with two-way radio
technology, outside Amateur radio, was fixing the radios in the snow
plows and staff cars used by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, back
in 1972. At that time, "Narrowband" was what we called FM two-way
radios that were set for plus-and-minus 5KHz deviation. However, I've
been told that "Narrowband" now refers to radio transmitters using
±2.5KHz deviation, and "Wideband" is the older ±5KHz
system.
Pleae tell us if I'm right, and what that change did to increase the
available bandwidth in the bands used by First Responders, and why
FirstNet is considered "Wideband."
> It's basically a 700 MHz LTE network, where the 700 MHz band has
> good indoor and cluttered-area coverage. The idea is that AT&T gets
> to use the spectrum for commercial (cellular) customers, but
> reserves and prioritizes its use for first responders when they need
> it. FirstNet's customers, the first responders, pay for the service,
> which allows them to download images and video, which could help
> them in their front line work.
IIRC, 700 MHz was the range used for "trunked" two-way push-to-talk
systems: I thought it was still being used for that. Correct me if I'm
wrong, though: didn't T-Mobile have it's "Push-To_Talk" service in
that band as well?
And, Ghod forgive me, I have to ask what "LTE" means in this
context. Trunked radio systems are now decades old, so if that's what
AT&T is calling "Long Term Evolution," well, I want my tax money back.
> Not all first responders buy into this; real-world police in many
> places, for instance, carry ordinary smartphones, which generally work
> fine. But in some places where cell coverage is spotty, FirstNet gives
> AT&T an incentive to build out, and it gives local governments an
> incentive to permit the necessary towers to be built. Whether that's
> good or bad is a matter of perspective...
Let's pull over into the learning lane for a moment, and I'll ask a
few questions I hope will clarify what is going on.
1. Is FirstNet
® a service that uses single-channel radios, like the
ones that Police used to have for their exclusive use, or is it for
"trunked" radios like the ones taxicabs, courier services, and
delivery trucks use now? Some Police and Fire departments have
switched to "trunked" systems, because some municipalities have
combined all their departments onto a single "trunked" system in an
effort to save money.
2. If FirstNet is a "Wideband" service that allows First Responders to
"download images and video," how can it be shared with older
"narrowband" Release-To-Listen users? Are there multiple systems with
different capabilities sharing the FirstNet band(s)?
3. Unless I misunderstand the FirstNet PR, the system is equipped to
allow First Responders to interrupt existing "other" users when
First Responders make a call. Is that correct? Is there any public
info you can point us to?
Thanks for your help. I'm sorry to have to ask what are probably very
basic questions to you, but I need to have a common basis of under-
standing if the Digest is to have cogent threads about issues and
systems such as FirstNet.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
Telecom Digest Moderator
