Article intended to highlight many contributions
To the editor:
I am concerned that there may be a misperception resulting from my article published by RCR on March 27, 2000, that the U.S. government in some way “favors” CDMA over other wireless technologies. This has been inferred from the omission of reference to TDMA-EDGE in the article. This omission (of which I was unaware) occurred somewhere in the editing of the article. The article was in no way intended to indicate favor for CDMA over TDMA.
On the contrary, my intent in writing the article was solely to rebut the growing impression that the United States is behind Europe in the wireless sector. The plethora of articles in nearly every major publication over the last nine months claiming that Europe’s regime of a single, mandatory standard for wireless services has given Europe a technological edge over the United States has created the widespread impression that the United States is behind Europe in the wireless sector. The article I submitted sought to highlight the many and very significant contributions of the U.S. wireless industry, linking U.S. leadership to the freely competitive market in the United States. Another theme was the role of regulation over technology in augmenting the use of wireless phones abroad.
Since our initial involvement in 1998, the U.S. government has been meticulous about treating all U.S. 3G technologies in a neutral manner, advocating for a market-driven approach that gives operators the freedom to choose the technology that best meets their commercial needs, and that allows operators of second-generation networks the ability to evolve to 3G on a level playing field. Our vigorous advocacy efforts on behalf of U.S. standards resulted in all being included among the five modes endorsed by the International Telecommunication Union just last week. It is not in this country’s interest to try to second guess the experts in the industry by favoring one competing technology over another.
Sincerely,
Ambassador David. L. Aaron
(currently Senior International Advisor to Dorsey & Whitney L.L.P. Ambassador Aaron is the former U.S. Ambassador for International Trade of the Department of Commerce)
Editor’s Note: Ambassador Aaron’s article was originally edited for length.
New GPS SA rules don’t solve all E911 problems
To the Editor:
“Changing the Rules” in RCR’s Opinion section on page 12 of the May 8 issue was mistakenly effusive over the implications of the Clinton administration’s decision to relax the application of GPS Selective Availability (SA), which has been used to intentionally degrade GPS accuracy. The RCR column declared that, “The adjustment has the potential to change how every carrier deploys E911 service because an off-the-shelf, GPS-based solution suddenly meets federal requirements for delivering E911 position location services.” Were this true, it would indeed be worthy of your hearty applause. But it’s not true, and the fundamental problem with wireless E911 handset solutions remains.
Focusing on the issue of position accuracy, RCR overlooked the more fundamental question of whether the “solution” works at all as applied to commercial wireless service. RCR missed the key issue; wireless handsets calling 911 frequently aren’t in a position to “see” the GPS satellites sufficiently to obtain a location fix. This “blindness” occurs when the E911 caller is in a vehicle, a building, an urban canyon, under heavy foliage, etc. In such cases, an unassisted GPS/handset location fix is simply unobtainable. The handset cannot determine where it is located and cannot provide that information to those who would respond to the emergency call. FCC E911 requirements, by contrast, apply to all calling conditions, not just clear field. Granted, in those cases where the “view” of the GPS satellites is unobstructed, and where there is sufficient time for the unassisted handset to acquire the satellites and compute a position, the removal of GPS SA might allow a more accurate fix. But it does nothing to solve the fundamental problem of the unassisted E911 handset solution: satellite obstruction.
Handset-oriented wireless E911 location developers have proposed various forms of network assistance to help handsets determine their location. Removing GPS Selective Availability does not eliminate the need for such assistance or alleviate the other concerns inherent in any handset E911 solution: the need to replace existing handsets; the impact on wireless network operations and resources; the cost of the new handsets; accurate location of roamers; handset resource utilization; and, marketing value-added services.
Well-designed network-based wireless E911 location systems avoid the handset conundrum entirely and can allow wireless carriers to provide accurate, reliable E911 coverage to their existing handset population under virtually any calling scenario.
George Marble
Vice President-Location Services
Grayson Wireless Division
Allen Telecom Inc.
Whose customer is it?
To the Editor:
Thank you for allowing me to respond to Mr. Bruce Heyman, director of strategy and business development for Motorola Inc.’s Radio Products Division, whose letter you printed in the May 15 issue of RCR.
Mr. Heyman was quite eloquent in his response to my original letter, which was printed in RCR’s April 24 issue. Quite frankly, I would have been surprised if Mr. Heyman had done anything other than so perfectly toe Motorola’s mark. However well-versed the letter might be, it did nothing to address my concerns or the concerns of other Motorola dealers, not to mention the concerns of our customers.
Contrary to what Mr. Heyman would have everyone believe, there are large numbers of Motorola dealers throughout the United States who do view their customers as THEIR customers, not Motorola’s. These dealers (us included), have worked very hard … for many years … to acquire, cultivate, service and retain customers. We are all INDEPENDENT dealers who deserve to preserve the sanctity of our customer lists. Furthermore, when our customers tell us (in writing) that THEY do not wish us to release any specific (and possibly proprietary) information concerning their purchases to ANY third party, we feel bound to abide by our customers’ wishes.
I do not doubt that there are many Motorola dealers out there who have dreams at night about how wonderful it will be to input their sales information into the Impact 21 program and then have it “automatically appended with a plethora of additional statistical and demographic information using Dun & Bradstreet’s global business database.” And imagine the joy that these dealers must feel when they “effectively segment their current customer base,” and then “segment this information by a number of important criteria.” As a matter of fact, the only thing this “fabulous marketing tool” seems to be lacking is the ability to correlate all of this information to the phases of the moon.
Once again, I must point out that I have no problem with Motorola offering its dealers an opportunity to participate in its marketing programs. Why not make participation in the program optional? It is the audacious manner by which Motorola has historically intimidated the very dealers that it claims to support, that causes me and other dealers to clutch our customer lists ever more tightly. Why must participation in this marketing program be mandatory? Consider these questions: When Motorola cancels one of its dealer contracts, what happens to all of the customer names Motorola received from that dealer as a result of the Impact 21 program? Do those names go into a shredding machine, or do they get distributed to that “ex-dealer’s” competitors? And if Motorola is so ostensibly dedicated to maintaining a local presence through its dealers, then how come it has been conducting mark
eting “focus groups” to determine the most effective way to sell its radio products directly to the public via
the Internet? How long will it be before these local dealers are a remnant of days gone by?
No, Mr. Heyman … I am not anti-Motorola; rather, I am “pro-Portronix.”
Respectfully,
Jules K. Neuringer, President
Portronix Communications Inc.
Politics play more than pennies in infrastructure game
Dear Editor:
In Dan Meyer’s article titled, “Name game continues with consolidation,” (May 1), Dan believes that less money is being spent on infrastructure and more on marketing the new Verizon Wireless brand name.
Companywide, more money gets spent on infrastructure, however the issue here is not money. It’s about the government on a local level. Many proposed cell sites never get built because of zoning boards. For example, in the town of New Hartford, N.Y., in the upstate region of Verizon Wireless, for more than four years the town of New Hartford zoning board has denied every proposed cell site location. Still today there is not a cell site in New Hartford, and coverage is in demand by our customers.
Verizon Wireless knows that having a quality infrastructure creates a quality product. There are many facets that create a successful wireless company. Marketing, sales, service and engineering are some of these facets, and they work together to create the best possible product. In the wireless industry there are many factors that influence how extensive we build our networks. Most of the time it is politics.
Jason Taillon
Verizon Wireless
Utica, N.Y.
RCR welcomes letters to the editor responding to articles and commentary presented in the newspaper or stating opinions on other topics relevant to the wireless communications industry.
Letters must be signed by the author. RCR reserves the right to edit letters for style and space. Letters can be mailed to the company at 777 E. Speer Blvd., Denver, Colo., 80203, sent by fax at (303)-733-9941, or sent by e-mail to talk2rcr@crain.com.
