Wireless and politics
Dear Editor:
Correct me if I am wrong, but is your publication a trade tabloid directed to the needs of those involved in the wireless communications business? If so, why is it being used as a political forum to allow Bush bashing by the esteemed Mr. Jeffrey Silva?
While I concede Mr. Silva’s right to an opinion, I must respectfully submit that if Mr. Bush was responsible for one-tenth of the allegations of mismanagement made by Mr. Silva, there would be no need for the legislative and judicial bodies at all.
I believe it is fair to assume that Mr. Silva is no fan of Mr. Bush. On the other hand, if I simply want more exposure to anti-Bush propaganda, I can get all I need at ABC News, the Washington Post and any number or “expert” political commentators on talk radio.
If my primary interest is political from a balanced perspective (if indeed there is such a condition), I can always watch the O’Reiley Report. But since I am a-political by nature, I prefer to refine my abilities in my chosen profession of communications marketing. This is why I am a reader of RCR (didn’t that originally mean Radio Communications Report?). I do not need, nor do I want, more political exposure, debates on the sex habits of alcoholic homosexual Himalayan hermits or ongoing tirades about global warming or the possible extinction of snail darters in some obscure waterway in Tennessee.
What I DO want, and I think my views may be shared by a large number of your readers, is news about the business in which we are involved-namely wireless communications! Might it be possible for Mr. Silva to focus on the topics of interest to your advertisers and readers?
On the other hand, if Mr. Silva’s comments are made simply to evoke response, I guess you could say that he has succeeded!
Burch Falkner
Falcon Wireless
Birmingham, Ala.
Dear Editor:
In response to the column on driver distraction by Tina Eichner in the July 2 issue, I would like to make a couple of points. First, what started out as an issue of public safety is increasingly becoming an issue of political expediency. The question of whether or not to restrict the use of cellular phones while driving is only part of the overall issue of distractions that reduce the attentiveness of the driver. From a public-safety standpoint, it’s clear that to effectively deal with the problem, you must address all forms of distractions and educate people about what not to do while driving. Enforcement of existing laws can also act as a deterrent to drivers who engage in distracting activities. The majority of studies to date have indicated that wireless phones are not the major source of distractions and that passing legislation would be premature given the lack of data correlating use with the risk of vehicular accidents. Yet from a political standpoint, wireless phones and distracted driving is an easy issue to take on and comes with little political risk. A legislator intent on receiving public and media attention can make it his or her “issue,” regardless of the ultimate motivation. What better way to promote yourself or your agenda than to author legislation that purportedly solves a problem that has no factual basis.
Secondly, although common sense would seem to dictate that hands-free is inherently safer than using a handheld phone while driving, there is no evidence to support this. Promoting legislation to require hands-free use can be a double-edged sword because enactment does not guarantee any corresponding reduction in risk of accidents, to the extent such risk exists in the first place. In addition, carriers and policy-makers may be sending the wrong message to the public that this somehow fixes the problem, something they would be hard pressed to demonstrate.
Christopher Johnson
Sr. Manager, State Government Affairs
VoiceStream Wireless Corp.
Dear Editor,
After reading Tina Eichner’s recent opinion, “Defensive or Proactive,” allow me to compliment you for making the point. Also allow me to apologize on behalf of my colleagues within the industry who minimized your previous concern regarding wireless handsets and safe driving, causing you to feel “simple minded.” I am sorry to say that we live within a society where too many are encouraged to ask “Why?” instead of “Why not?” Thank you for asking the latter.
Jerle Freeze
VerizonWireless
