Feedback

Responding to the Response

Response to May 1, 2001, Warning article written by David Crowe and the June 15, 2001, Your View reply from Mr. Douglas Weiser.

I read the May 1, 2001, article “Warning” and Mr. Douglas Weiser’s June 15, 2001, reply “No Financial Reward Here,” with a great deal of interest. The first seemed to imply that all wireless solutions are poorly suited to emergency warning systems. However, the article focused only on the application of SMS technology. Both articles make incorrect references to a related patent.

Is wireless technology the solution for Emergency Alert System (EAS)? At this point, it is doubtful anyone truly knows. It appears the EAS is evolving still and that it will take a while to define a comprehensive product that can support the full range of EAS needs. Establishing a set of standards that can be applied consistently by the thousands of local jurisdictions that will use EAS will be another challenge.

In the meantime, the need for improved emergency warning systems continues to grow. In a perfect world, carriers, handset manufacturers, switch manufacturers, etc., may come together and support development of a comprehensive wireless-based EAS product. Until then, there are wireless notification solutions, based on simple cell-broadcast technology, that can help meet public safety needs today.

Regarding U.S. Patent 6112075 (method of communicating emergency warnings through an existing cellular communications network, and system for communicating such warnings), some clarification is in order. First, patent coverage is broader than “location-based messaging” as might be interpreted from Mr. Weiser’s reply. Second, all rights to the patent are held by PCA Information Systems. The company’s name was incorrectly stated in both previous references.

Any future questions pertaining to the patent should be referred directly to PCA Information Systems. Mr. Weiser has no authority on matters relating to this patent.
Clifford A. Stigall
VP Marketing
PCA Information Systems
cstigall@mvp.net

Wireless Data Pricing

Just read your editorial (Views, “The Price of Peripatetic Computing,” June 1, 2001), and I must agree. I consult in telecom and technology, but my "consumer" perspective is that fixed-rate is the only way to go. I have been using AT&T's PocketNet service here in New York City since last September, and I can't imagine using any other pay-per-use type of service. A basic issue that does not get raised often enough is the ease, or difficulty, of using the wireless Internet on a wireless phone at this point.

As a consumer, if I realize that I am being charged per minute for my voice calls, I can make a concerted effort to talk faster or condense my conversation. We grow up learning how to speak, so there is no learning curve involved in making voice calls on a wireless phone. For data use, though, there is a steep learning curve as consumers have to learn the device interface, their carrier's portal interface and all of the other interfaces they may end up using through the wireless Internet service. Why should consumers be penalized for their need to learn how to use the medium?

Great editorials. Keep them coming.
Sam Werberg
CSD Group Consultant
swerberg@findsvp.com

Until wireless carriers can come up with a product that offers a true value, they are spinning their wheels.

Historically, when paging first came into the picture, it was seen as a product that offered value. People could locate somebody on demand. Cellular allowed people to actually talk to others.

Nobody has a crystal ball, but I think they are forgetting the lessons history has to offer. With the debt they have accumulated, they are forced to go after the mass market, and that will hurt them, I believe, in both the short and long term.

I also honestly believe they are also creating a lot of churn themselves by constantly changing packages and services. Just a front-line opinion.
Robert Enk
Bbbstl@aol.com