KENNETH MORAN: Good morning everyone. On behalf of the Chairman and the Commission, I'd like to welcome you to this 6th and final meeting of the Commercial Mobile Services Alert Advisory Committee. When we first all met 10 months ago,
KENNETH MORAN: we noted that many highly talented and qualified individuals were represented here, and acknowledged the committment that each of you made to the public safety by agreeing to shoulder this additional task of developing a system critical recommendations for a voluntary commercial mobile alert and warning system.
KENNETH MORAN: As we indicated at last month's meeting, the WARN act imposed on us a high level of complexity within an accelerated timeframe. We hoped that the advisory committee could meet the challenge presented by the legislation and be able to present to the commission the recommendations that would assist the commission in conducting a successful rulemaking.
KENNETH MORAN: The measure of success of this rulemaking is high. A voluntary yet widely deployed system through which all Americans whether elderly, non-English speaking, or those with disabilities would be able to receive alerts,
KENNETH MORAN: warnings and other critical information through their wireless devices. We've now reached the end of the journey. today we will be discussing and voting upon the recommendations upon which you have all spent so much time in the last ten months.
KENNETH MORAN: We've had a few days to review this document, and I think I can speak for all of us when I say that we have met our deadline with a product of exceptional quality. We knew when we assembled the advisory committee that we had assembled highly capable group that spanned the breadth of the communications industry.
KENNETH MORAN: What we were not sure of was how well you would all collaborate. I expected a lot given the talent and skill of the group, and you have more than met our expectations. It is truly a demonstration of the value of the public and private partnerships that such a diverse group can come together to act so quickly and so successfully on a highly technical project.
KENNETH MORAN: As shown in the agenda, today we will hear a final report and summary of the draft recommendations from the Advisory Committee's Project Management Working Group, after which we will discuss and vote upon the amendments that have been submitted during the past week.
KENNETH MORAN: Finally, the Advisory Committee will vote upon the mission critical recommendations that will be presented to the Commission. I certainly look forward to these recommendations. I want to thank each of you for the committment and skill that you have brought to this very important project.
KENNETH MORAN: So let us begin. I think we should start by doing a roll call. We have a number of people at the table here but we also have a number on the telephone bridge. So let me start on the telephone bridge and see who's here.
KENNETH MORAN: Raymond Ban.
RAYMOND BAN: Present.
KENNETH MORAN: Marsha Brooks.
MARCIA BROOKS: Good morning
KENNETH MORAN: Good morning. Leslie Chapman-Henderson. No response there. Marion Dunn-Tutor.
KENNETH MORAN: Thomas Lyon.
THOMAS LYON: Yes sir. Present.
KENNETH MORAN: Gadi Mazor.
KENNETH MORAN: Kevin McGinnis.
KEVIN MCGINNIS: Present.
KENNETH MORAN: Ilkka Juhani Niva.
KENNETH MORAN: Art Prest.
ART PREST: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Pat Roberts.
PAT ROBERTS: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Anthony Rutkowski.
ANTHONY RUTKOWSKI: Here, but I'm in Berlin.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Paul Wilcock.
PAUL WILCOCK: Present.
KENNETH MORAN: Dale Gehman.
DALE GEHMAN: Present.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay, the ones that we didn't get, let me try them once more: Leslie Chapman-Henderson, Marion Dunn-Tutor, Gadi Mazor, and Ilkka Juhani Niva. Okay. Let's go around the table and make sure we've got these straight.
KENNETH MORAN: Robrt Adams.
ROBERT ADAMS: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Ann Arnold.
ANN ARNOLD: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Ralph Aubry.
RALPH AUBRY: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Dale Barr.
DALE BARR: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Eugene Berardi
EUGENE BERARDI: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Cheryl Blum
CHERYL BLUM: Here.
ART BOTTERELL: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Art Botterell.
KENNETH MORAN: Stephen Carter.
STEPHEN CARTER: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Edward Czarnecki.
KENNETH MORAN: Brian Daly?
BRIAN DALY: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Amar Deol?
AMAR DEOL: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Robin Erkkila?
ROBIN ERKKILA: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Maria Estefania?
MARIA ESTEFANIA: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Dale Gehman. He's on the phone. Christopher Guttman-McCabe?
CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Gary Jones?
GARY JONES: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Brenda Kelly-Frey?
KENNETH MORAN: Rob Kubik?
ROB KUBIK: Here
KENNETH MORAN: John Lawson?
JOHN LAWSON: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Anthony Melone?
ANTHONY MELONE: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Richard Mirgon?
RICHARD MIRGON: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Jay Pabley?
JAY PABLEY: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Mark Paese?
MARK PAESE: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Eric Peterson?
ERIC PETERSON: Here.
BILLY PITTS: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Billy Pitts?
KENNETH MORAN: Doug Rutledge?
KENNETH MORAN: David Webb?
DOUG RUTLEDGE: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: William Wertz?
DAVID WEBB: Here.
WILLIAM WERTZ: Here.
KENNETH MORAN: Kelly Williams?
KENNETH MORAN: Okay, we're going to -- yeah, I'm sorry?
KELLY WILLIAMS: Here.
EDWARD EHRLICH: You didn't call my name. Edward Ehrlich. I was here for Ilkka Niva. We (unintelligible phrase) about this on Monday.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay.
EDWARD EHRLICH: Thank you.
KENNETH MORAN: I'm sorry, you're here from?
FEMALE VOICE: Nokia.
KENNETH MORAN: Nokia. And your name is Edward Ehrlich. Okay. Who else have I missed here?
STEPHEN HAYES: Stephen Hayes, here for Ericcson.
KENNETH MORAN: Stephen Hayes. Okay. Ericcson.
STEPHEN OSHINSKY: And Stephen Oshinsky for American Association of Paging Carriers.
KENNETH MORAN: Stephen, I didn't catch your last name.
STEPHEN OSHINSKY: Oshinsky.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Anyone else at the table representing someone I called or mispronounced their name?
KENNETH MORAN: Okay.
MALE VOICE: For those of us on the conference bridge, is that Derek Poarch talking?
KENNETH MORAN: I'm sorry?
MALE VOICE: Is that Derek?
KENNETH MORAN: Oh, no. I'm sorry. My name is Ken Moran. I apologize. I'm Deputy Chief of Public Safety, Homeland Security Bureau. Chief Poarch is unfortunately out of town today on assignment. I think we will begin.
KENNETH MORAN: Jeff Goldthorp has a presentation on the recommendations, the draft recommendations.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: This is a tight fit. Thank you Ken, and good morning to all of you. Before I start, let me also offer my thanks to all of you for your hard work this year, these last ten months, not even really a year.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: I can remember back in December when we first met and thought about how much of a challenge this was after looking over what had been asked of us in the Act, and it was. The work that's been done, I think,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: is phenomenal, and it's my opinion it's a great piece of work, and so I'm impressed with the effort that all of you put in. I extend my special thanks to the folks that I've worked the closest with on the project management team.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: So, thank all of you for all the hours that you put in and to all the members of your teams.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: What I will be doing today is summarizing the recommendations that the committee's made and the recommendations that will be considered by the full committee today. I'm not going to go into detail. You've had the report now since the 24th,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: and probably even before that you'd seen drafts of it, so there's no need for me to go into great detail; but I wanted to outline the recommendations to give you some context on how we got where we are. Some of this you've seen before.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Maybe all of it you've seen before, but it doesn't hurt to repeat some of these things today, and I won't go on for very long.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: First of all, the WARN Act. The WARN Act was adopted last October as part of a much larger piece of legislation, and what the WARN Act does is call for the creation of a voluntary commercial mobile service provider alert system.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: The process by which such a system would be brought into existence is described in the Act. The first step in that process, and that's important, the first step in that process was the formation of this committee and the gathering of a group of experts from across the industry to develop system critical recommendations on protocols and interfaces and requirements for the system.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Those are the recommendations that you have in front of you, along with those amendments that we'll consider today. Those are in front of you as well.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: After today, the committee's work will be done, but the work that the WARN Act envisions will not be done. The WARN Act also talks about work for the Commission that goes into a 180-day rulemaking cycle where we will be substantiating rules,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: technical rules for commercial mobile service providers that opt to transmit emergency alerts. So as I said, it's a voluntary system, but it's a voluntary system in which if you elect to participate you have to participate according to certain rules,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: and those would be the rules that we put into effect 180 days, roughly speaking, from now. After that is done, there will be another...well, actually I shouldn't necessarily put these in sequence because I don't know how it will all be timed,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: but there is a 120-day cycle for the Commission to put together rules, licensing rules for commercial mobile service providers to opt into the process. That will need to be completed, and there's also a proceeding that's envisioned involving public broadcasters to enable what I'll call geotargeting of alerts.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: All that work is in front of us yet. The work of the committee is now mostly behind us, and we'll be talking in detail about that today.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: The statutory deliverables for this committee are listed in front of you. I won't talk about each of these in turn specifically in the remarks that I'll make today, but I will say that we, in preparing the report,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: have gone through and made sure that each of these points have been addressed, so I'm confident that the obligations that we have under the Act have been addressed in the recommendations that have been made.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: As I go through here, I'll try and make clear which ones apply to which section or which set of recommendations, but these recommendations span the gamut from the first one there --which turns out to be quite a bit of technical detail,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: technical protocols, technical specifications for conveying alerts to commercial mobile service providers that elect to participate in the program -- all the way up to procedures for end users to opt out of certain alerts.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: So the rules really do cover a fairly broad range of features about this system. Not the rules, but the statutory obligations that this committee was operating under. The rules are yet to be defined.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: The diagram that's in front of you right now is a reference model that you've seen before; I think several times now. There are some words up here that I've added just because these are recommendations. They're not conclusions of the committee yet.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: But if you look at this diagram, let me just summarize it one last time before we go to consider the document today. Three domains in this document. On the left-hand side, the origination space, the entities that will be originating alerts for transmission to wireless carriers or commercial mobile service providers.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: These can be local entities. They can be state entities. They can be federal entities. The alerts that are being delivered now to in many cases -- and I'm going to use the term carriers in place of commercial mobile service providers because it's easier and it doesn't take as long,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: so when I say carriers, that's what I mean. The carriers in many cases have national footprints. So, one of the recommendations that you will see in the report is that there will be a centralized aggregation function that will collect these alerts and distribute them over a single feed or redundant feeds to carriers,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: rather than having them be distributed through multiple geographic points of presence. So that was one of the requirements, or one of the recommendations, that came out of the committee.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Another recommendation was that the authentication function, which would be done in the center domain, would be done by a federal entity, a government entity; that authentication is not something that should be left to a commercial entity.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: So that is a function that is being done here in the alert aggregation portion of the architecture. There's also a function in this authentication and processing domain called a gateway. And this is the function where alerts are translated from CAP format,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: which is the format that is used to transmit alerts from the origination point into the system, to a format that can be delivered to the carrier community. That interface is the C interface. Alerts that go over the C interface do not go over the C interface in CAP format.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: They go over the C interface using the protocol specified or recommended in this document. And these are recommendations, so bear that in mind, but it is recommended that the alerts not go over the C interface in CAP.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: So the gateway does that translation, and it does a number of other things as well. It maintains profiles about each of the carriers that are participating. Profiles help the gateway to know where alerts are going and specific information about the carriers that are participating that help it to customize the alert for delivery to the carriers.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: So it's almost -- you can think of it as a translation function for the alerts coming in from the alerting origination site to the carrier side of the architecture.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: And then finally, there's the carrier domain, which is administered by the carriers that are participating in the program. The first entity in that portion of the architecture is the gateway. Each of the carriers that participate will have one or more gateways that they will administer,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: and that's the unit in the architecture that receives the alerts over the C interface and prepares them for transmission out over the wireless infrastructure. It makes decisions about which cell sites,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: for example, to light up for certain types of targeted alerts, so that function would be performed by the gateway.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: From there the alerts float out into the wireless architecture itself, make their way down into the handset where the end user is notified of the alert, depending on the options that they've set and what they have chosen to -- I'll say if they've opted out of certain types of alerts,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: they won't receive those alerts. They would receive other types of alerts, and we'll get into that a little bit.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: In the WARN Act there is a notion of "in whole or in part". One of the things the committee did was to interpret the meaning of that term in the context of the section of the Act that applies to the committee. There's a portion in that section that implies that the committee is supposed to come up with recommendations on how a carrier that can only support the distribution of alerts in certain areas or on certain devices,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: how that could be implemented.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: The recommendations you have in front of you include recommendations for how a carrier would do that. The interpretation of "in whole or in part" is just that. It's that you have a carrier that can support delivery of alerts on a subset of their service area or on a subset of devices,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: either now or in the future.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: This section of the document that I'm referring to here uses a set of diagrams using deployment scenarios just to give a sense of the kinds, almost the permutations of coverage areas and different devices supported that could occur in a real world environment,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: so there are a number of diagrams in the section. There's also recommended language for how a carrier would notify an end user of their intention to support the distribution of alerts, in part or not at all.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Alert scenarios are, I'll say, use cases. When you look at the document you will see a number of diagrams that look like message flows, protocol diagrams where you'll see messages flowing not through the archi -- well,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: it is through the architecture, but you won't see it looking like the architecture. It's just showing how the message would flow in different scenarios.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: The value of doing something like this is it will identify the need for certain functionality in the architecture that may not have been considered before. It will identify error cases that need to be considered and dealt with in the form of error messages.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: So you won't find in this section specific recommendations, but it was a very useful exercise to go through just to come up with use cases that would reveal things that did lead to recommendations in other sections of the document
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: General recommendations. And by the way, at the top of these slides, I'm listing the sections in the Act that refer to the specific obligations that the committee had and the ones that I had listed in the first or second slide of today's talk.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: If you go through here, you'll find that we've covered all of the things that the committee asked us to do.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: In general recommendations, the committee concluded that, first of all, the system be used only for severe alerts, severe emergencies. Now, what is a severe emergency? The committee tried to take a stab at what that would be.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: First of all, obviously a Presidential alert trumps all and is severe. Also, imminent threat to life and property is considered to be severe. So an alert condition, an emergency, would have to be one that involved imminent threat to life and property for an alert involving that condition to be considered worthy,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: I'll say, of being transmitted over the system. And finally, AMBER alerts, so-called AMBER alerts, are also considered to be a class of alert that would be supported by the system. So, those are the classes of alert that would be suppported by the system or recommended for being supported by the system
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Also in this section, we get into the topic of geotargeting. Geotargeting is a complex technical issue, and it's sort of a layered issue right now. For starters, the recommendation is that early implementations -- and I've got county in quotes here because there are a number of ways of interpreting this language and I don't want to parse this too carefully because we could get into a long conversation about this.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: The language in the document itself makes it clear what I mean by that. Early implementations will emphasize targeting, loosely speaking, at the county level. Now, it doesn't limit it to that. Carriers that choose to target on a more granular level than that are free to do so.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: So it's not a prescription, but it is a recommendation that that not be a requirement at this point, that it be more precise.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: It's understood that, even now, there are areas in the country that have more urgent alerting needs than others, and more urgent needs for tighter geotargeting than county level. So it is understood than an effort should be launched to try to identify what those areas are and identify ways of being more precise even early on
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Now this gets in very quickly to the notion of -- and you get on a slippery slope here where I really don't want to get onto, but I feel compelled to -- static versus dynamic geotargeting. The nirvana and the goal that's expressed in the document as where the committee is recommending we had is essentially dynamic geotargeting.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: The recommendation is that we're not there yet, but that is where we aspire to be. Dynamic geotargeting simply means that the alert originator would have the freedom to specify where the alert would go. The system itself would place no constraints on the geotargeting boundaries per se.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Static geotargeting, you know, on the other hand is one in which you've got specific areas where you can target alerts to. For the moment, for now, that's the world we live in, or it appears to be the world we live in,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: and that's the world that the committee is recommending that we live with for now. That world can be tightened in certain cases by limiting or making the static area more granular.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Special needs communities. Two issues there. One is there is a recommendation for a common audio attention signal and a vibration cadence. It turns out that a lot of the requirements for the disabled access community are essentially the same as the requirements that would exist for the mass market.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: That was a surprise to me, personally. I thought that there would be some differences there, but the conclusion of the committee is that there is a lot of commonality in that respect.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Subscriber opt out. There's a provision in the Act that subscribers have the ability to opt out of certain types of alerts. The committee has recommended that under no circumstances should a subscriber be permitted to opt out of a Presidential alert; that absent that -- so keeping in mind that all Presidential alerts go through,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: okay -- then a subscriber would have three choices. A subscriber could opt out of all alerts, could opt out of severe alerts, could opt out of AMBER alerts. So, those are the choices that a subscriber would have for opt out
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Finally in this section, support for languages other than English; a topic that I know the committee spent quite a bit of time on. And the conclusion now in the recommendations is that the technical issues or limitations or technical challenges that are posed by this problem are beyond the reach using today's technology.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Certainly, that may not be true forever, but it is true now, so English is the language that is supported today. That doesn't mean that that will be the only language supported for all time.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Service profiles. I use this term technological neutrality. I find, personally looking at the recommendations, that the recommendations are technologically neutral. Technologically neutral in the sense that the underlying architecture and the underlying protocols are based on service profiles,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: not technology profiles. It's not like we sat down and defined a set of technology profiles and said that these are the only platforms that this alert system can operate on. Instead, the committee identified service profiles,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: and the service profiles are such that technologies can be built on top of the service profiles. I've listed the various service profiles that are defined in the recommendations.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Mobile device recommendations. The main finding in the mobile device recommendations -- there are more than this, but the main one and the one that we've talked a lot about is battery life. We were very concerned about battery life early on,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: and we've learned in the months since that with certain provisions made it's likely not to be as big an issue as we thought. This is going to require changes in the network. It's going to require changes in handsets.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: It's going to require new standards. We're going to go through a new standards cycle anyway, and there will be changes made in all three of these areas for any of this stuff, any of the things I've been talking about.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: So battery life is one of the things that's got to be added to the list of changes made.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Let me go through the security performance and reliability issues. This will be essentially my last slide. For security, there is a notion of a trust model that's been defined. That model, the trust model,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: is implemented in the center domain, the aggregation and authentication domain. That is the trust model portion of the architecture where alerts that are coming in from various sources are authenticated so that when they're handed off to a carrier for delivery,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: the carrier can be assure that the alert is from a trusted source. The architecture includes capabilities for buffering and for overload. It includes highly reliable gateway elements. The reason that's important is because the gateways tend to be single points of failure,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: so those are highly reliable devices. Latency in the device, as far as performance goes, is very difficult to predict. At this point, we don't have it implemented. The system is not implemented. So it's hard to predict and there are no specific predictions for latency at this point,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: but there's a recommendation that logging and testing be used so that data can be accumulated that can be used to improve the system going forward.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: Finally, maybe the most technically detailed section of the document, the interface protocols themselves go into extensive detail, and in particular on the C interface, which is the interface to the carrier community.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: That is the last section of the document. I'm not going to go into any detail on this, but there is extensive detail in that section of the document.
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: So, thank you for all of your hard work, and that concludes my remarks.
KENNETH MORAN: Thank you, Jeff. Next let's take up the amendments. I believe each of you have a set of the amendments. Good. Let me tell you the basic procedure we're going to go through. We'll have the originator present the amendment and briefly describe why the person believes the amendment should be passed.
KENNETH MORAN: We'll have discussion. There are so many amendments here. There are at least 12. I think some of these are sort of duplicates. There may be more than 12. I'd like to hold the discussion to three minutes or less if we can,
KENNETH MORAN: and then after the discussion we'll have an up or down vote. The vote will be by majority rule of committee members participating in the meeting today, which we think the count is 39. Is that what we have at this point?
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Let's start with Mr. Daly. I think you have an amendment regarding reference architecture.
BRIAN DALY: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Could you present that?
BRIAN DALY: Yes. As is mentioned throughout the document, there's a Reference Point D and a Reference Point E mentioned several times. Reference Point D on the architecture diagram, which Jeff showed,
BRIAN DALY: is between the CMSP gateway and the commercial mobile service provider infrastructure. Reference Point E is from the infrastructure out to the mobile device. This proposed amendment just proposes to include those reference points on the diagram and also makes an editorial change to the figure at the bottom for the mobile device.
BRIAN DALY: Since we do also include paging technology we would recommend that the device that's included be changed to include a pager device, as well as a figure more representative of a mobile handheld device. And then the second is in Section 2.3.4,
BRIAN DALY: just a note where Reference Point D resides in the architecture.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Thank you. Can we have a second on that proposal?
STEPHEN OSHINSKY: Second.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Any discussion? Would anyone like to discuss this?
KENNETH MORAN: Actually I would like to check the teleconference in case anyone came on board since we began. Let me find out. Is Leslie Chapman-Henderson on board on the telephone bridge?
KENNETH MORAN: Marion Dunn-Tutor?
KENNETH MORAN: Gadi Mazor?
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. We have the same list.
MALE VOICE: Dr Czarnecki has come on.
KENNETH MORAN: I did catch that yes.
KENNETH MORAN: So, I see no proposed discussion here in the room. Anyone on the bridge want to discuss this proposal?
KENNETH MORAN: Okay, I hear none. Well, let's have a vote. In the room here we're going to do a show of hands. All those in favor raise their hand.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. I think maybe we can subtract. We'll try that on the next vote as long as they're unanimous. What do you have?
KENNETH MORAN: Thirty. Okay. Let's see. Is that what we thought we had here? Thank you. Yes, we thought there were 30 in the room here.
LISA FOWLKES: Thirty.
LISA FOWLKES: Are you letting the people on the phone vote?
KENNETH MORAN: Yes, we are. The people on the teleconference, I'm going to call your names. You tell me yea or nay. Raymond Ban?
RAYMOND BAN: Yea.
KENNETH MORAN: Marcia Brooks?
KENNETH MORAN: Thomas Lyon?
MARCIA BROOKS: Yea.
THOMAS LYON: Yea.
KENNETH MORAN: Kevin McGinnis?
KEVIN MCGINNIS: Yea.
KENNETH MORAN: Art Prest?
ART PREST: Yea from merry olde England.
KENNETH MORAN: Pat Roberts?
PAT ROBERTS: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Anthony Rutkowski?
KENNETH MORAN: We may have lost someone there. Paul Wilcock?
PAUL WILCOCK: Yea.
KENNETH MORAN: Dale Gehman?
DALE GEHMAN: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Anthony Rutkowski?
KENNETH MORAN: We seem to have lost one there.
MARION DUNN-TUTOR: You've also gained one.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. And who is this?
MARION DUNN-TUTOR: Marion Dunn-Tutor.
KENNETH MORAN: Thank you, Marion. Marion, have you heard this amendment that's been offered?
KENNETH MORAN: What's your vote on that?
MARION DUNN-TUTOR: Yes.
MARION DUNN-TUTOR: Aye.
KENNETH MORAN: I'm sorry. Aye? Okay.
LISA FOWLKES: It's a majority.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. We certainly have a majority, so that amendment passes. The next one I have on my list anyway is, Brian, another one of yours, amendment to Section 5.
BRIAN DALY: Yes. This is Brian Daly again. In Section 5, there is mention of the creation of an Industry Group for review of the Advisory Committee recommendations, and the current text recommends the Industry Group should meet on a biennial basis.
BRIAN DALY: However, there's other recommendations throughout the document which give some specific tasks to this biennial review, including reviewing the research project for geotargeting, address any issues that might arise during development,
BRIAN DALY: deployment and so forth. So the recommendation in Section 5 is to add a sentence at the end that it is expected that during research, development and deployment this Industry Group may need to convene more frequently than biennially to address research,
BRIAN DALY: conclusions and any development or deployment issues.
KENNETH MORAN: Thank you. Do we have a second?
RALPH AUBRY: Second.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Any discussion?
KENNETH MORAN: I see none in the room. On the bridge if anyone wants to discuss this, speak up.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Let's take it for a vote. In the room here let's start with all the nays.
KENNETH MORAN: No nays? Any abstentions?
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. The FCC abstains. I think we know what that count means. Is there any other option besides those two and yeas? On the bridge, let me go down the roll call again once again there. You vote yea or nay.
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. Ban?
RAYMOND BAN: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Marcia Brooks?
MARCIA BROOKS: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Marion Dunn-Tutor?
MARION DUNN-TUTOR: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Thomas Lyon?
THOMAS LYON: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Kevin McGinnis?
KEVIN MCGINNIS: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Art Prest?
ART PREST: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Pat Roberts?
PAT ROBERTS: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Anthony Rutkowski?
KENNETH MORAN: Paul Wilcock?
PAUL WILCOCK: Yea.
KENNETH MORAN: Dale Gehman?
DALE GEHMAN: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Do we have that count, Lisa?
LISA FOWLKES: A majority.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. The majority certainly. I assume everybody here was yes, although I didn't ask for it, so we have those two passed. Okay. Another one, Brian, from you, the amendment to Section 5.1?
BRIAN DALY: Yes. Thank you. This is Brian Daly. Earlier in the process when we were creating Draft 2 of the Advisory Committee recommendations, there were two change requests which came in, one from the CTG and one from the User Needs Group.
BRIAN DALY: These two proposed change requests did go in to modify the same section of the document, and pieces of each were accepted for inclusion into the draft at that point. However, I believe through the editing process some of the text actually did not make it into the document,
BRIAN DALY: and we noted that missing text in this proposed amendment. I'll highlight just the changes.
BRIAN DALY: First, that a commercial mobile service provider that elects to transmit under Section 602(b)(2) of the WARN Act may not impose separate or additional charge for such transmission or capability when the emergency alerts are transmitted in a manner consistent with the technical standards,
BRIAN DALY: protocols, procedures and other technical requirements implemented by the Commission. For transmission or service beyond the standards protocols, procedures and other technical requirements implemented by the Commission,
BRIAN DALY: a commercial mobile service licensee is not bound by Section 602(b)(2)(C) of the WARN Act. In addition, the commercial mobile service licensee may utilize the technical standards protocols, procedures and other technical requirements implemented by the Commission to support the WARN Act for other services or purposes and are not bound by Section 602(b)(2)(C) of the WARN Act
BRIAN DALY: Moving on to the second page, CMAS will be provided according to the technical standards, protocols, procedures and technical requirements implemented by the Commission, and a service provider shall not be bound to any specific vendor,
BRIAN DALY: technology, software implementation, client device or third party agent in order to meet the obligations under the WARN Act.
BRIAN DALY: The next paragraph states that standardization of these protocols/procedures should be done in an industry forum which have a well defined, reasonable and nondiscriminatory intellectual property rights policy,
BRIAN DALY: allowing for multivendor implementations, and it is anticipated that mobile devices may incur additional development and manufacturing costs, and these costs may be passed on to the subscriber. A commercial mobile service provider or any device deployed by the commercial mobile service provider to support the transmission of CMAS alerts according to the WARN Act shall not be required to identify location or location history of the mobile device
BRIAN DALY: Again, this was agreed upon text within the CTG and was part of a change request that went to the PMG, but I believe through editorial omission it was not in the final recommendations.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second?
MALE VOICE: Second.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Any discussion?
ANN ARNOLD: I wanted to ask a question, please.
KENNETH MORAN: Yes?
ANN ARNOLD: We have agreed to a report that would recommend a really minimal kind of messaging for cellular companies to do because we're told that that's the most that all of the companies can agree to at this point,
ANN ARNOLD: but I don't see why people should be charged for getting additional kinds of services that we all agree would be appropriate and helpful. I mean, why would we want the consumers to be charged for being able to get a video or an audio when those kinds of services or additional implementations are only going to be done when the cellular company gets paid for those by virtue of what the consumer is getting in the regular cellular service?
ANN ARNOLD: I don't see why there should be an additional fee for any kind of EAS alert.
KENNETH MORAN: Anyone? Brian?
BRIAN DALY: Yes. Brian Daly. What I believe this is trying to state is that the standards, protocols and procedures that are defined within the recommendations, they do include future technologies such as multimedia,
BRIAN DALY: streaming video, streaming audio. So, the intent is that as defined in the recommendations, those services that do fall under the WARN Act and under the recommendations, would be provided as specified in Section 602(b)(2)(C) of the WARN Act
WILLIAM WERTZ: Brian, Bill Wertz. Am I to understand then by what you're saying that multimedia streaming or whatever future technologies that might be available under the first three scenarios would not be charged to a subscriber,
WILLIAM WERTZ: but additional messages beyond those three categories may be? Under Presidential level, imminent threat and AMBER, if there was a multimedia version of that, would the customer be charged for that or not under this amendment
BRIAN DALY: As long as it fits under the definition and scope of a wireless emergency alert, no. It would fall under the WARN act stipulations for that.
ANTHONY MELONE: Can I make a comment?
KENNETH MORAN: Yes, go ahead.
ANTHONY MELONE: I think what's intended in this language can be simply stated that technology that is deployed to serve emergency alerts is likely to also be used for other commercial products. So, for instance,
ANTHONY MELONE: there may be a product that uses broadcast SMS totally outside of emergency alerts. The carriers are simply stating that we are allowed to charge for such services should we develop them. Simply because we're using the same technology that's used for emergency alerts should not preclude the carriers from being able to charge for those services.
ANTHONY MELONE: I think that's the essence of that language.
KENNETH MORAN: Anyone else? Please identify yourself.
RAYMOND BAN: This is Ray Ban on the bridge. We've lost contact with the meeting room.
EUGENE BERARDI: I'm sorry. This is Gene Berardi. Can you hear me?
RAYMOND BAN: Yes.
EUGENE BERARDI: Okay. So a point of clarity on the second paragraph. Is that being decided on a carrier-by-carrier basis whether or not something was sent out that should not have been? If something is sent out via the system that is determined not to fall within the scope of the three categories that we've defined,
EUGENE BERARDI: who's making the determination that there should be charges incurred? Would each carrier decide separately whether or not to?
BRIAN DALY: Well, as Tony had mentioned, if it's a commercial service obviously that would be a carrier decision. If it falls under the recommendations and protocols that are defined as far as the recommendations of the Advisory Committee then that would fall under all carriers
EUGENE BERARDI: I may not be clear. If somebody who is a valid originator for emergency alerts sends something out that is later determined not to fall within the three categories -- in other words, it was a gray area and somebody believes it did not apply.
EUGENE BERARDI: Who would then decide to charge either the end users or the originator?
ANTHONY MELONE: Do you want me to take that, Brian?
KENNETH MORAN: Yes. Please identify yourself.
BRIAN DALY: Sure.
ANTHONY MELONE: This is Tony Melone. That decision is made by the government entity administering the alert gateway. For emergency alerts through this system that's being recommended, there will be no charges for delivery.
ANTHONY MELONE: If it gets through the gateway it will be delivered at no charge.
EUGENE BERARDI: Okay.
ANTHONY MELONE: So the rules around that are government administered rules based on the final recommendations and final decisions and rules.
EUGENE BERARDI: Okay.
ANTHONY MELONE: What you're describing is more likely to be a commercial arrangement between a local emergency entity and one or more wireless carriers that would fall outside of this recommendation. There would be a different infrastructure most likely to provide that commercial service
EUGENE BERARDI: Okay. Thank you for the clarification.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Anything else?
KELLY WILLIAMS: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. Williams?
KELLY WILLIAMS: I have two questions. One, it strikes me as odd. This is an awful lot of text to just seem to be omitted by accident, and I'm wondering if anybody, since this was a submitted change and all changes were reviewed,
KELLY WILLIAMS: if there is someone on the Management Committee who can address why this text wasn't in there and whether this is an attempt, and I say this with all due respect, to get in text that was deemed not to be put in the document kind of as a second chance
KELLY WILLIAMS: The other question that I have, and this sort of bothers me overall about the report, is sort of assessing the language here. If the gateway -- we've sort of created a document that's based on a technology that does not now exist,
KELLY WILLIAMS: and we're relying upon the fact that at some point the government will build that aggregation and gateway function. So the question is, if that's never built, if it's never funded and never built, does this paragraph say that the carriers are then relieved of their obligations under 602(b)(2)?
KELLY WILLIAMS: And that I guess goes to you, Ken.
KENNETH MORAN: Actually, Jeff, can you speak to his first question? As the chair of the Management Group, do you have anything to respond to why this language wasn't in the document?
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: I don't recall. This language I think was in a fairly early draft -- right, Brian -- and so it's been a while since it's been in here. I don't remember the circumstances under which it was removed from the document,
JEFFERY GOLDTHORP: so I don't have anything to add at this point.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. And your second question is if the system is never built?
KENNETH MORAN: What was your question?
KELLY WILLIAMS: Yes.
KELLY WILLIAMS: Does this language relieve the carriers of their obligation under 602(b)(2)?
KENNETH MORAN: Lisa, do you have a call on that?
LISA FOWLKES: I think the only answer that I can give is just a general answer, which is that these are recommendations that, assuming they're adopted, would have come from the committee and so the recommendations by themselves without further action,
LISA FOWLKES: they're just that. Recommendations. I think the question of under what circumstances carriers will be required to comply with the WARN Act, questions regarding what exactly at the end of the day is the system that's adopted,
LISA FOWLKES: is something that would have to be addressed in the FCC rulemaking. I mean, that's essentially the only answer I can give you.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Anyone else here? Yes, David?
DAVID WEBB: Yes. Dave Webb with FEMA. Brian, at the third paragraph, the one that talks about “may utilize technical standards.” I certainly have no problem with a commercial entity, you know, using this technology to go on; but I think there needs to be something in here that reflects that it will not come through the government gateway,
DAVID WEBB: because this kind of implies that, okay, you're going to use a gateway type standard somewhere, but it doesn't say that the government gateway will only be used for emergency alerts and warnings. I can agree with the entrepreneurship totally,
DAVID WEBB: but we need to leave the government out of the entrepreneurial spirit. I have no problem if you utilize the technologies and other things that have been developed, but we can't put the government gateway and aggregation point into -- you know,
DAVID WEBB: I can't offer for sale to a commercial company yes, come and use my gateway and send messages to the carriers.
KENNETH MORAN: Brian, a response?
BRIAN DALY: Yes. Is there a specific text where you see that? The way I read the third paragraph is it's specifically for the commercial mobile service provider.
ED CZARNECKI: The second paragraph.
David Webb: But it talks about the service licensee may utilize standards, protocols, procedures and other requirements implemented by the Commission. The procedure would be where I have the problem where it would come through the government gateway and be,
Daly: Oh, it's the second paragraph.
David Webb: you know, aggregated and then put out through the gateway. So we need to just differentiate that, you know, while the system may be used for other commercial interests, the government system will not support any commercial interest.
David Webb: It's solely for the EAS.
ED CZARNECKI: This is Ed Czarnecki. I think what Dave has mentioned, while technologies, approaches or methods may be developed that could have third party or commercial implications, actual use of
ED CZARNECKI: a system, as opposed to an approach or methodology, needs to be differentiated.
ED CZARNECKI: Moreover, in the third paragraph, the last sentence: The CMS provider shall not be bound to use any specific vendor, technology, software, client device or third party agent in order to meet the obligations under the WARN Act.
ED CZARNECKI: In terms of entire systems view, I'm not sure, as one of the system integrators in the many IPAWS programs, it makes sense at this stage to limit or authorize any specific technology or vendor. There may be something there that needs to be mandated by the government in terms of their specific architectural development.
ED CZARNECKI: It just may be too broad, as with the prior comment. It may be too broad of a statement.
ED CZARNECKI: If I may, a third point. The fifth paragraph, and this may be more of an editorial than a substantive comment. It is anticipated that mobile devices shall support CMAS and may incur additional developing and manufacturing costs,
ED CZARNECKI: and these costs may be passed on to the subscriber. Point of fact. That may or may not be true, but my personal opinion is I'm not sure that would rise to the level of a statement to be put in a recommendation document.
ED CZARNECKI: That may or may not be point of fact true.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Does anyone on the bridge want to discuss this item at all? Speak up, if you would.
BILLY PITTS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to.
KENNETH MORAN: Hold on. Anyone on the bridge?
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Identify yourself, please.
BILLY PITTS: Sorry. Billy Pitts. The last paragraph. I was not quite sure why it was put in there, and I wanted to know, one, because it's not required to identification location or location history. I assume that that's the bread crumbing concept,
BILLY PITTS: but the location -- does that have any impact on theE911 efforts? And secondly, I saw that there was a public filing by a company that has yet another technology with bursting SMS that is based somewhat on location identification,
BILLY PITTS: so I was wondering why this paragraph and what impact it has on both E911 and other technologies?
KENNETH MORAN: Brian, would you care to respond?
BRIAN DALY: Yes. This is Brian Daly. From an E911 perspective, this is not addressing E911. That's separate. The discussion surrounding this paragraph deals with some of the issues identified by the CTG with regard to identifying location or keeping location histories either within the network or otherwise of mobile devices and the technological considerations for that
ANTHONY MELONE: This is Tony Melone. If I can add to that? One specific area, Billy, was in mobiles moving in or out of an area that had a previous warning, and being able to update or not update and make decisions based on that particular mobile and where it had or had not been was discussed,
ANTHONY MELONE: and the technical challenges with doing that were deemed to be extraordinary. So this language is specific to that issue.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Thank you. Let's go to vote.
KELLY WILLIAMS: Actually, I would like to offer an amendment to this as well. Thank you, Dr. Czarnecki, for pointing that out. I actually feel fairly strongly that the Commission should not include a recommendation that essentially is a business practice,
KELLY WILLIAMS: and I agree with Ed. And I propose to delete Lines 10, 11 and 12 in Amendment 2. The Commission should not be recommending to Congress that a carrier can or cannot charge for anything except for the language that we have,
KELLY WILLIAMS: but I don't think we should say what you may charge for.
ANN ARNOLD: What would you delete again?
KELLY WILLIAMS: Lines 10, 11 and 12 on page 2.
ANN ARNOLD: I second the amendment.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. I think what we need to do is we need to vote on the amendment as presented, and we can vote on the amendment as amended.
KELLY WILLIAMS: Actually, by Robert's Rules you have a proposal on the amendment to modify the amendment. You have to do that first.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. A vote on this?
ANN ARNOLD: Are you just wanting to have a show of hands to indicate whether or not it's going to be required to go into amendments?
ANN ARNOLD: Perhaps that's what you're interested in; not a formal vote, but a show of hands of how many people would oppose this whole amendment.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. You proposed an amendment. We have a second on the amendment. Do we have any discussion on this amendment?
CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Go ahead.
CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE: Chris Guttman-McCabe with CTIA.
CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE: The reason this type of language is in there is because, and this happens all the time. I know you know this, but this happens all the time when legislation comes down that makes a statement, but doesn't detail what is meant by it.
CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE: And there's some language in the legislation that talks about not charging, and they're trying to get some clarity around the recommendation from this Advisory Committee to the Commission, so the Commission isn't adopting this per se.
CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE: It's a recommendation by this committee that we're trying to get some clarification as to what is meant by the ability to charge or not charge. That's why these are in here. So with regard to the idea that the devices are going to likely cost more and there will be upgrades and things like that,
CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE: the idea is not to capture a per message cost and charge anyone on that, but if there are additional costs involved in handsets and other upgrades that just naturally, normally independent of this process,
CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE: would be passed on to consumers, the idea is to capture that here. As I said, 10 months ago the ultimate goal of this, the only measure of success in this process, is if the carriers say yes at the end of this and go through this process and sign up to provide this service
CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE: So, the idea here is not to try to bless some business proposal or bless the ability to charge consumers. The idea is to make sure that the process is one that there's enough clarity around it such that carriers feel comfortable when this is done signing onto this process and saying yes
ART BOTTERELL: Mr. Chairman?
KENNETH MORAN: Yes, Mr. Botterell?
ART BOTTERELL: Art Botterell from Contra Costa County. I too am concerned that this language in Lines 10, 11 and 12 on page 2 is perhaps not as specific as we'd like to see it. I can see it being read several different ways.
ART BOTTERELL: I think that Mr. Williams has suggested deleting it. I wanted to ask Mr. Daly if he would accept that as a friendly amendment.
BRIAN DALY: I think the concerns which Mr. Guttman-McCabe just raised are the reason why it's in there. We believe it needs to be stated and clarified so that the Commission has a recommendation on the clarification of the WARN Act specifically mentioning providing the service at no cost to subscribers.
BRIAN DALY: Perhaps an alternate amendment, we could reference that section of the WARN Act and ask specifically for the clarification that needs to be made as far as manufacturing and infrastructure costs and how those are treated under that section of the WARN Act
KENNETH MORAN: Let me understand. What would your suggestion be?
BRIAN DALY: What I recommend is it is anticipated that mobile devices may incur additional development and manufacturing costs, and these costs are not covered under Section 602(b)(2)(C) of the WARN Act instead of passed on to the subscriber,
BRIAN DALY: if that helps to clarify the intent.
ROBERT ADAMS: Mr. Chairman?
ROBERT ADAMS: Robert Adams. As said earlier, maybe we could table that for the full Commission, as Brian is saying, to revisit that when they start
KENNETH MORAN: Yes?
ROBERT ADAMS: studying the recommendations by this committee. Because I agree with him. Today we don't know if and what those costs may -- I think that's what AT&T is trying to bring to the committee, and I would agree with them.
ROBERT ADAMS: We don't know what it is today, but again I think the FCC -- these are only recommendations. I'm sure there's going to be many hearings on this before some final Act comes out.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Mr. Williams has a proposed amendment striking Lines 10 through 12 in this amendment. Is that ripe for a vote?
KENNETH MORAN: Anyone on the bridge before we take the vote who wants to speak?
ART PREST: Yes. This is Art Prest speaking on behalf of the rural wireless carriers in the United States. For the rural wireless carriers to opt into this they're going to have to make sure they keep themselves whole.
ART PREST: If there's an increased cost in the mobile device that has the capability of providing CMAS, then I believe that the rural wireless carrier should be able to charge extra for the mobile device. Not the service; the incremental cost that is incurred to buy that mobile device
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Thank you. So we take a vote. Would the vote be on the amendment less those three lines, or is the vote --
KELLY WILLIAMS: The vote is to amend the motion.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. A vote to amend the motion.
KELLY WILLIAMS: But before we take that vote --
KELLY WILLIAMS: -- I have one more comment, which is I guess what I'm suggesting here is that this report remain silent on that issue.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay.
MALE VOICE: That's what I was saying.
KELLY WILLIAMS: Which that's why I want to delete the language. It is my understanding, and staff can correct me, that you are due to report to Congress by the end of this month. Is that correct?
KENNETH MORAN: By the 12th, right?
LISA FOWLKES: What the process is is that the committee has to develop and submit recommendations to the Commission by October 12.
KELLY WILLIAMS: Right. And then the Commission has to report.
LISA FOWLKES: No. It's not a report.
KELLY WILLIAMS: Oh, you don't?
LISA FOWLKES: It's a rulemaking. That's what I was saying earlier. Once the committee submits its recommendations to the Commission, the Commission must commence and complete within 180 days after receiving those recommendations a rulemaking to adopt technical rules,
LISA FOWLKES: so the purpose of the committee and the recommendations are to give a basis by which the Commission would then go forth and adopt rules that address technical standards. So it's not a report to Congress. It's basically the first step in trying to,
LISA FOWLKES: at the end game, have rules that govern this area.
KELLY WILLIAMS: Okay.
KENNETH MORAN: All right. Let's take the vote. So the proposal is to strike Lines 10 through 12 from this proposed amendment.
KENNETH MORAN: How about all those voting that they want those lines stricken at the table here?
KENNETH MORAN: Have we got the count? We've got it? Okay. How about those at the table, those who do not want to strike those three lines?
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Sue, did you get the vote?
SUE GILGENBACH: I had a hard time with the “nos.”
MALE VOICE: Yes. Raise your hands.
KENNETH MORAN: This is on the second vote, the vote not to strike.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. You got it? How about vote abstain?
KENNETH MORAN: FCC abstains. Okay. Let's vote on the bridge.
FEMALE VOICE: Can you clarify for those on the bridge how the vote just went in the room?
KENNETH MORAN: If they were at the table they would see how the vote went in the room. Sue, what was the vote that you have at the table?
SUE GILGENBACH: For yeas, 12. For nos, 15.
KENNETH MORAN: Twelve yeas, 15 nays and two abstained.
SUE GILGENBACH: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. So, we'll go to the bridge. So, the vote is -- I'll ask you do you want -- yea means you want to strike those three lines from the AT&T amendment. Mr. Ban?
KENNETH MORAN: I'm sorry?
RAYMOND BAN: Abstain.
RAYMOND BAN: Abstain.
KENNETH MORAN: Abstain. Okay. Marcia Brooks?
MARCIA BROOKS: Abstain.
KENNETH MORAN: Marion Dunn-Tutor?
MARION DUNN-TUTOR: Yea.
KENNETH MORAN: Yea. Thomas Lyon?
THOMAS LYON: Nay.
KENNETH MORAN: I'm sorry?
THOMAS LYON: No.
KENNETH MORAN: No. Kevin McGinnis?
KEVIN MCGINNIS: Abstain.
KENNETH MORAN: Art Prest?
ART PREST: No.
KENNETH MORAN: Pat Roberts?
PAT ROBERTS: I'll abstain.
KENNETH MORAN: Paul Wilcock?
PAUL WILCOCK: No.
KENNETH MORAN: Dale Gehman?
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. We're making a tally here. Sue, what do we have?
DALE GEHMAN: Abstain.
SUE GILGENBACH: As of present we have 16 yeses, we have 18 noes, and we have seven abstained.
KENNETH MORAN: Seven abstained. Our rule is you have to have a majority of the people at the meeting for the motion to pass, so the motion did not pass. Let's take a vote on this amendment.
ANN ARNOLD: Could I offer another amendment, please?
KENNETH MORAN: Ms. Arnold, what do you have?
ANN ARNOLD: I'd like on the first page to strike Lines 33, 34 and 35.
ANN ARNOLD: I don't see why we as a committee should be saying what licensees are bound by or not bound by. Is there some other purpose to this, Brian, that I'm not aware of?
KENNETH MORAN: Brian, would you care to respond?
BRIAN DALY: Yes. Brian Daly. I think this goes back to what Tony mentioned earlier that there will be uses of the technology beyond which is specified under the WARN Act. For those uses we aren't bound by the specific section of the WARN Act referenced
ANN ARNOLD: What uses are you talking about?
BRIAN DALY: Potential commercial uses for the technologies that are being deployed.
ROBERT ADAMS: Robert Adams of Global Security. So we just voted and the amendment passed to incur additional costs for handsets and what other devices, a recommendation to the FCC, but in the same language you're saying somebody's deployment technology is going to have some commercial aspects,
ROBERT ADAMS: which is going to make money. Again, I'm very disappointed at the vote a while ago because I think that's what we're trying to do here is to protect the public with the least cost necessary.
ROBERT ADAMS: Again, thank you, Ann, for bringing that up to the Commission.
KENNETH MORAN: Yes?
GARY JONES: Thank you. Gary Jones. I believe this text is a critical part of an attempt to make very clear what is offered to the public as a service. Now, what I think we've tried to do here is clear up what is and what is not part of the commercial mobile alert service.
GARY JONES: Now, that clarity in my mind helps the carriers understand what they're supposed to deliver, and it also makes clear that there may be uses of the technology that we develop to provide that service that are outside the definition of the commercial mobile emergency alert and that it's not encumbered by the rules of the WARN Act.
GARY JONES: Now, I think that clarification is very necessary for the carriers and aids in their understanding and their comfort level to be able to opt into this service.
KENNETH MORAN: Thank you. Any further discussion on Ms. Arnold's amendment? Yes?
RALPH AUBRY: I have one question. As technology in the mobile devices advances we can expect to see additional function being added. Some of this function may apply to the WARN Act. Some of this function may ride on the WARN Act to provide additional attractive commercial services
RALPH AUBRY: How does the consuming public know when they're getting something that's part of the WARN Act or they're just paying for additional function that they may or may not need?
KENNETH MORAN: Any discussion on the bridge?
KENNETH MORAN: Do we have a second? I assume yours is a second to Ann's proposed amendment?
ROBERT ADAMS: I'd really like comments from Brian to clarify again this language. We made comments. I don't know if we're ready to pass a motion yet. And, again, the commercial application subsidizing alert and warning features of the CMAS,
ROBERT ADAMS: and again we could always handle that I'm sure at a future date with the FCC if it gets out of hand or whatever, but that's the only comments I had. I don't know whether we strike this from the amendment or not,
ROBERT ADAMS: because I think we're going to be here all day trying to strike these one or two liners.
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. Melone?
ANTHONY MELONE: This is Tony Melone. If I could respond to that comment? Again, I believe the intent of the language is simply to state that there will be no charges to customers for delivering emergency alerts.
ANTHONY MELONE: However, the enablers for emergency alerts are also enablers for lots of other commercial products, and all this is is a statement for clarity to make sure that if a new device is required for a customer,
ANTHONY MELONE: which it's likely to be with this technology to receive commercial mobile service alerts, is it the requirement of the carriers to provide that new device to a customer free of charge?
ANTHONY MELONE: And I would submit to you it's important for that clarity to be in the recommendation, to be in the rules before a carrier elects to participate, because if it's ambiguous and a carrier may incur charges to replace handsets for every single customer,
ANTHONY MELONE: the net result of that will be carriers will opt out of this, and to Chris' point, we will have failed. So this is all about clarity. I think it's completely consistent with everybody's view around this table of how this should work,
ANTHONY MELONE: and I think we're getting ourselves hung up on, you know, that we're trying to gain the system here. This is for clarity so that we can opt in. I don't know how more clear to state my view on this. We need to be very clear.
ANTHONY MELONE: We are going to provide emergency alerts to customers at no charge for delivering those emergency alerts.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay.
ANTHONY MELONE: An analogy to this would be rules around E911 location accuracy. We offer commercial location-based services. We are not bound to the accuracy requirements that are defined in E911.
ANTHONY MELONE: It's the same kind of analogy. We don't want to be bound by those types of rules for commercial services that may utilize the technology.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay.
ANTHONY MELONE: Thank you.
ROBERT ADAMS: Tony, Robert Adams again. I totally agree with you and also CTIA. I'm only going on the record just saying that Congress and the FCC should take that into consideration because I'm not for replacing every handset in 30 days,
ROBERT ADAMS: especially if in a year or two, according to CTIA, they're replaced anyway by attrition. I agree that it should be technology that can come in at a slower pace to be implemented where there's no cost to the handset,
ROBERT ADAMS: because again some of us get a new one every 30 days, and I'm only going by figures by CTIA. But I know in a couple of years, according to what I read, people get a new handset within 18 months ,or something like that.
ROBERT ADAMS: So I do agree with you. It shouldn't be a drop dead date like digital television or something where everybody has to go get a new handset, but I do think the comment they're making here today is none of us know what these new technologies are,
ROBERT ADAMS: and some of them cost a lot of money to implement. We're just trying to follow the order of the WARN Act. And again, Tony you're right -- no gotchas in here where we have to do something. I'm more for voluntary than anything,
ROBERT ADAMS: so that's the only comment I have again to Brian trying to protect the language of the carriers not to be forced to do something that costs hundreds of millions of dollars, but something that makes sense to the general public.
ROBERT ADAMS: Again, my only comment is taking these things out of these amendments and adding them in, I think the spirit is all the same thing. We need to protect the infrastructure and the general public, and I just figured we could handle it some other kind of way,
ROBERT ADAMS: but I guess we'll just go through line by line.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Do we have a second on Ann Arnold's proposed deleting of Lines 33 through 35?
RALPH AUBRY: Second.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Let's take a vote on that. At the table here, who votes to strike Lines 33 through 35?
KENNETH MORAN: You have the count? Okay. Who votes to keep the Lines 33 through 35; to not strike the Lines 33 through 35?
KENNETH MORAN: You got it? Okay. Any abstains?
KENNETH MORAN: FCC abstains. Okay. We'll go to the bridge. The issue is do we strike Lines 33 through 35 on this particular amendment. So, I'll call your name. Tell me if you want to strike or no strike. Mr. Ban?
RAYMOND BAN: No.
KENNETH MORAN: Ms. Brooks?
MARCIA BROOKS: Abstain.
KENNETH MORAN: Abstain. Marion Dunn-Tutor?
MARION DUNN-TUTOR: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Is that strike?
MARION DUNN-TUTOR: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Mr. Lyon?
THOMAS LYON: Do not strike.
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. McGinnis?
KEVIN MCGINNIS: No.
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. Prest?
ART PREST: No.
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. Roberts?
PAT ROBERTS: Can I ask a question? Is this amendment offered by Ann Arnold?
KENNETH MORAN: Yes, it is.
PAT ROBERTS: Then I vote yes.
PAUL WILCOCK: No.
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. Wilcock?
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. Gehman?
DALE GEHMAN: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Yes. Okay. Sue, what do you got on that?
KENNETH MORAN: Ms. Dunn-Tutor? Marion, could you repeat your vote?
MARION DUNN-TUTOR: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay.
SUE GILGENBACH: For yeses I have 10, and for noes I have 26 and abstain, three.
FEMALE VOICE: Could you repeat that, please, with the microphone?
SUE GILGENBACH: . For yeses I have 10, no I have 26, and abstain I have three.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. It does not pass. Yes, I would like to bring the original amendment up for a vote.
MALE VOICE: So moved.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay.
DAVID WEBB: Mr. Chairman?
KENNETH MORAN: Yes?
DAVID WEBB: I would like to propose that we add the words in Line 39 that the government portion of the commercial mobile alerting service will not be made available for commercial use.
KENNETH MORAN: Do you have specific language?
DAVID WEBB: That exact sentence at the end of Line 39. The government portion of the commercial mobile alerting service will not be made available for commercial use.
KENNETH MORAN: The government portion --
DAVID WEBB: Of the commercial mobile alerting service will not be made available for commercial use. And that strictly deals with from the alert origination up to the C interface -- for clarity.
KENNETH MORAN: And you wanted that last phrase in there too?
DAVID WEBB: No, sir. The last phrase was for clarity for the group.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Yes, Mr. Czarnecki?
ED CZARNECKI: Mr. Chairman, likewise the third paragraph. It should be made clear that pertains to the CMSP network and not the government alerting network or Reference Point A or C.
KENNETH MORAN: Is this a different amendment that you're trying to offer?
ED CZARNECKI: I'm sorry. Yes, it is.
KENNETH MORAN: Well, let's deal with Mr. Webb's amendment. Dave, you propose to add the sentence, "The government portion of the CMAS will not be made available for commercial use," at the end of Line 39?
DAVID WEBB: Yes, sir.
KENNETH MORAN: Is that correct?
DAVID WEBB: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Any discussion on that issue?
KENNETH MORAN: None here. How about on the bridge?
MARCIA BROOKS: This is Marcia Brooks. May I ask a question?
KENNETH MORAN: Yes.
MARCIA BROOKS: I wanted to clarify whether that has any relation to the language in the recommendations about making the gateway available to
MARCIA BROOKS: third party vendors who, for instance, provide sign language interpretation.
KENNETH MORAN: Anyone on her question? Dave?
DAVID WEBB: Mr. Chairman, it's Dave Webb with FEMA.
DAVID WEBB: I do believe that that is in the realm of alerting, and to the best of my knowledge, and I can't predict the future, but at this point I do not know the third party charging a disabled individual for the cost of receiving that alert through their service,
DAVID WEBB: and it is not intended in any way to mean that we cannot distribute alerts to a distribution system that would affect the disabled or the non-English speaking communities.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Any other questions?
PAUL WILCOCK: This is Paul Wilcock. Could we have the additional clarification provided by the proposal included in that notation, so the reference points to the network reference points?
KENNETH MORAN: David?
DAVID WEBB: I have no objection to that if you would like me to include "specific government network from Reference Point A to Reference Point C would not be available for commercial use".
PAUL WILCOCK: I just think it clarifies government portion -- a little more defined.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. David, do you agree with that?
DAVID WEBB: I can agree and add that, yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Do we have a second on that proposal or that proposed amendment?
MALE VOICE: Second.
KENNETH MORAN: Let's have a vote. I'm sorry?
MARIA ESTEFANIA: Could you read the final text one more time?
KENNETH MORAN: David? I've got the sentence, but I don't have your clarification.
DAVID WEBB: Read the sentence, please.
KENNETH MORAN: The government portion of the CMAS will not be made available for commercial use.
DAVID WEBB: And the government portion is described as from Reference Point A to Reference Point C. That was the --
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. The government portion that is from Point A to C or whatever, Reference Point A to C, of the CMAS will not be made available for commercial use.
DAVID WEBB: Yes, sir.
MARION DUNN-TUTOR: And may we ask Mr. Daly to speak to that amendment, please?
KENNETH MORAN: I'm sorry? Well, you may ask Mr. Daly.
MARION DUNN-TUTOR: Mr. Daly, would you kindly speak to that amendment?
BRIAN DALY: Yes. This is Brian Daly. The text that is proposed in the amendment really was focusing in on the commercial mobile service provider network, so I think what Mr. Webb has proposed is entirely in line with the intent
MARION DUNN-TUTOR: Thank you, Mr. Daly. Marion Tutor asking.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay.
KENNETH MORAN: Thank you. Anything else?
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Let's take it for a vote at the table here. The proposal is to add the sentence: "The government portion from Reference Point A to C of the CMAS will not be made available for commercial use".
KENNETH MORAN: I can try that again. So, let's have a vote. A vote yes is you would propose that new language be added. So at the table here?
KENNETH MORAN: You got it? Okay. Now, who votes no to that proposal?
KENNETH MORAN: Any abstentions?
KENNETH MORAN: One abstention. Okay. Now I'll go to the bridge. Sue, what was the count on the yeas?
SUE GILGENBACH: The yeas were 29.
KENNETH MORAN: Twenty-nine yeas, no noes and two abstentions. FCC abstained also.
SUE GILGENBACH: Okay.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. So we'll go to the bridge, and the question is do we put this language in the amendment? Mr. Ban?
RAYMOND BAN: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Ms. Brooks?
MARCIA BROOKS: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Ms. Dunn-Tutor?
MARION DUNN-TUTOR: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. Lyon?
THOMAS LYON: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. McGinnis?
KEVIN MCGINNIS: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. Prest?
ART PREST: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. Roberts?
PAT ROBERTS: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. Wilcock?
PAUL WILCOCK: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. Gehman?
DALE GEHMAN: Yes.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay.
ANTHONY RUTKOWSKI: This is Tony Rutkowski. I vote yes also.
KENNETH MORAN: Okay. Mr. Rutkowski is here, and he votes yes also. Thank you. Okay. So, I don't know the final tally, but that amendment to the amendment did carry and so are we ready to vote the entire amendment?
KENNETH MORAN: Mr. Czarnecki?
ED CZARNECKI: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. The first page, Line 27. If I could suggest an amendment that we add the line that the following recommendations, the following additions, pertain only to the commercial mobile service providers network?
ED CZARNECKI: That would cover in my mind everything else that's being added here; that it's not for the government network. These recommendations are just for the commercial mobile providers' own network.
KENNETH MORAN: Did the amendment we just --
ED CZARNECKI: That covers one specific line on the use of technologies, but it doesn't cover Lines 1 through 5, specifically 4 and 5, on the second page. It doesn't -- that's the principal issue there.
ART PREST: Can I ask what you