Another (politically incorrect) issue of the Wireless Outpost News. This publication is produced for the soon to be educated cellular phone user community. If you know of anyone else that may have an interest in our publication, make sure to forward them a copy. Don't worry if you miss an issue of our publication, we archive to cellularphonenews.com for your convenience. Now we move forward at Mach II speed!
[Note: This newsletter is delivered Bi Weekly on Wednesday.]
Disclaimer: What you read below in this segment of our publication are the comments and opinions of our readers. CPN does not endorse, censor, or solicit this material. All comments and opinions from our readers are published in their original format without editing for content.
COMPLIMENTS TO CPN
I just wanted to thank everyone from your publication for doing such a great job. I work for Rogers' AT&T Wireless in Canada & I frequently forward articles from your publication to my co-workers. It's refreshing to read the honest & straight forward opinions regarding the wireless industry.
Keep up the excellent work.
William M.
CPN Response:
Thanks for your comments, William. We do our best to keep it on the straight and narrow and we will continue to do so for as long as we exist. It is good to hear that
you share the articles from our publication. We will try to keep it informative so that you can continue to share our articles with your associates. Feel free to send in your comments in the future too. Good or bad, we will publish our reader opinions.
QUESTION ON LOCKED WIRELESS PHONES
Thanks for another great issue.
Can you elaborate a little on the following clip:
"Sprint PCS announces that their subscribers will be able to take their own mobile phone numbers with them if they choose another carrier. However, Sprint PCS & Nextel subscribers should be aware that these carriers' cell phones will not work on any wireless network but their own. In other words, they are not compatible with any other wireless provider's networks."
I understand that Nextel's devices won't work on other networks (iDen=proprietary network). However, Sprint's are another story. The devices that work on Sprint's network are often available via Verizon and other smaller CDMA carriers as well. Are there specific Sprint devices that are not compatible with other networks? Or do you have information that Sprint 'blocks' usage on other networks once a device is activated on their
network? Any detail you have would be appreciated.
Many thanks,
Julia M.
CPN Response:
That is correct. Once the units are activated on the Sprint PCS network or have been specifically programmed for Sprint PCS, they are no longer compatible with other networks. Sprint PCS also uses a different CDMA frequency than the other CDMA carriers
use. However, the CDMA units themselves straight from the factory can be used on any CDMA network provided they are not "locked" to a specific
carrier's network. Sprint PCS is a CDMA carrier that has their phones locked to their network [or service] similar to that which is done by national prepaid cellular service providers such as Tracfone.
WHY CPN BAGS ON HOP ON WIRELESS
Hello, I am a reader of your newsletter and notice your mentioning hop-on several times. It appears you're not too keen with them. Anyway, I am contacting them to be a distributor/independent sales rep, but I don't want to if the company is bogus or fraudulent. Can you be more specific about your anti-Hop-on views? I can understand the stock price not being what it's supposed to be, but is there anything else?
Mr. Wright
CPN Response:
It has more to do with the founder of the company than anything else. The founder was involved in a major scandal of alleged financial fraud which bilked investors out of millions of dollars with an online gambling company. This is currently under investigation by the Federal government. When that company went down from that problem, they migrated it into a telecom/long distance service [which allowed people to get free long distance in exchange for listening to advertisements], and later into disposable wireless. It was a frightening pattern which made us dig deeper into the company including gathering information from inside sources.
None of the disposable wireless companies have been found to have the finances or resources in which to produce a truly disposable cellular phone on a massive scale. One [company] has already fallen out, one [company] has gone to an emergency 911 disposable phone, and then we have Hop On Wireless. Outside of that, the company [Hop On Wireless] has been touting their product for three years now and missed every deadline. There probably isn't a reporter or editor out there that will pick up the press releases from the company.
We see the press releases on the wire but we don't bother to pick them up either and we are much smaller than our larger counterparts. Many of us in the publication industry see Hop On Wireless as the boy who cried wolf too many times. In our case, we just don't see the company as being economically viable as a business model. Whether or not that is true remains to be seen. Ours is but one opinion.
AT&T WIRELESS REQUIRES NEW CONTRACT
I think you need to be aware of AT&T's new LOW in business practices. AT&T has taken to disabling the phones of FULLY PAID customers who are not currently under contract. My annual contract expired over the summer. Have been an AT&T customer for over 3 years. When one calls customer service one is advised that one needs to purchase a new phone and the ONLY way to do that it to sign up for another annual contract. Unfortunately I don't plan on staying with AT&T until after the Nov 24th
deadline. I am now without any cell phone service for at least the next two weeks. ALL THAT despite the fact that I have paid AT&T approx $100 per month, including the current month.
Thomas N.
CPN RESPONSE
Hello Thomas,
Are you using a TDMA cell phone and AT&T wants you to switch to the GSM unit?
FOLLOW UP FROM THOMAS N.
That might very well be the case, I believe the Ericsson r289LX is digital. I had the pocket net service which I paid for and they disconnected back in August. However in this we are talking about the cell call service. Not the additional features. Shouldn't they offer to replace the phones instead of INSISTING that I sign up for another year? I'm done with AT&T. I'm going to T-Mobile.
CPN FOLLOW UP RESPONSE
We would think that AT&T Wireless would offer a new phone at no charge but they would need to require a new contract in order to recover the investment of migrating their customers from a digital cell phone to a GSM unit. Not just for the unit itself but for the other expenses incurred by handling and offering such a practice. It would be a reasonable solution to the problem while giving both parties the incentive to put in the time and effort. If this is not what is happening, then we would have to agree that AT&T Wireless could have handled it differently.
At least they wouldn't have lost a loyal and long term customer.
FINAL COMMENT FROM THOMAS N.
I find it completely UNACCEPTABLE that there is no warning. No deadline. No notice whatsoever. Just the disconnect the service by preventing outgoing calls. I find it extremely suspicious that they are doing this exactly 2 weeks before the cell phone portability rules go into effect.
If my call to 911 were blocked I would sue. For my sake as well as AT&Ts sake I hope I don't have any life or death situations in the next 2 weeks. I'm def NOT going to make any test 911 calls. That would be wrong of me.
Note To Readers: Although we told Thomas we think it would be fair for an upgrade and migration, we recently learned that AT&T Wireless has been having problems with that. They attempted to upgrade software about two weeks ago which left plenty of important information inaccessible to the carrier. Some dealers have been complaining that activations for GSM phones have been piling up since then. At the time of this piece being written, the problem was still not completely resolved.
WIRELESS CARRIER OVERBILLS CUSTOMER HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS
My girlfriend was paying $200 and $300 cell phone bills when she called to change the service plan to get her within her free minutes. She was then told by her service co. that they erroneously over charged her as she frequently stayed within her allowable minutes. Which means they owe her anywhere from $500 to $1000 for overcharging her.
My question is what is the rememdy as they only want to give her credit for future bills, when she should be reimbursed the overpayments?
Sincerely,
Oscar H.
CPN RESPONSE:
As long as your girlfriend has a contract with the company that isn't going to expire, the carrier would be considered as offering a reasonable solution to the problem. Not sure that we would agree with that since the carrier is basically getting an interest free lump sum due to their billing errors but most likely that is how it would work out. In any event, you should still file a complaint with local and federal regulatory bodies so that your issue has been properly documented for future reference.
Note to readers: Some of you may be wondering why we didn't put the blame on the subscriber. The answer is simple and complex. Part of customer service is expecting that the job will be done. If you are busy and are used to just paying your cell phone bill, you pay it without a second thought. Even if you noticed that it hadn't changed on the first bill, you would just assume that it was a lag in billing. The following month after that is easy to forget until you stop and look at the billing again. Regardless of how it happened, the wireless carrier is still ultimately responsible for making sure that customer change requests are implemented in a timely manner.
NEW CONTENT TO BE ADDED TO CELLULAR PHONE NEWS WEBSITE
We are adding new pages to our website obtained from the FCC. These pages include a LNP map, MSA list, and guidelines for consumers on LNP. The guidelines for LNP are a must read for consumers. We will
be placing the information in our Cellular 101 webpage for your convenience. MSA is an abbreviation for Metropolitian Service Area. We added the MSA list because the map identifies the cities by numbers and the MSA list will allow you to confirm which cities match the numbers on the Map.
The map and MSA list do require that you have downloaded a free version of the Adobe Acrobat reader. The map will be outdated within a few months since the deadline for wireless carriers to establish wireless local number portability is for the top 100 metro markets. After that, wireless carriers have six months more to address secondary markets. The guidelines also address the time it will take to complete a wireless number port. For the purposes of wireless to wireless, you will be looking at only a few hours.
However, if you are looking to port a land line to a wireless phone, expect it to take up to seven business days to complete. On a related note, it is suggested that business wireless subscribers and other enterprises wait until the start of the new year to begin porting their wireless lines over to a new wireless carrier. Simply for the reason that this is a new
exercise for the wireless carriers and there are bound to be wrinkles and kinks that need to be worked out.
Telecom managers could have a hard time keeping track of which lines were actually transferred and which weren't if they try and do it in the first month of LNP being available. Besides, many consumers are going to be testing the waters with this new found freedom and being part of the avalanche could create a serious time management issue if your company has multiple phone lines.
Outside of that, wireless carriers who are in competition with your current carrier will probably want to court your business. You should take this time to see what is being offered and evaluate what impact it may have on your business as well as your personal glory of course.
FCC WARNS: LNP FOR CONSUMERS NOT CARRIERS, AND OTHER ISSUES
If it sounds like some wireless carriers are whining about LNP it is because they are. They seem to think that the WLNP is being designed around their needs and requirements rather than the consumer. The FCC has made it very clear that this isn't the case and that WLNP is for the wireless subscriber. A quick salute to the FCC before we proceed. Anyhow, the FCC is now looking to address the issue of porting a landline to a wireless phone.
One issue of contention is what is called a Respborg in Telecom. The FCC is looking at the issue to see if wireless companies will be required to sign and send an interconnection agreement between a wireless
company and a land line company. The FCC doesn't think this will be necessary as it applies to wireless companies because wireless companies are better equipped to handle local number portability.
The same rules will still apply with being able to switch numbers in the same geographic area. In other words, you can't take a New York Number and have it transferred to a cell phone in California. Nor does it appear that the FCC wants interconnection agreements between wireless and landline companies because the current interconnection agreements used by land line companies allow them to dispute the agreement if they don't agree with the details which can take up to 90 days to resolve.
The FCC is also advising the public that the initial implementation of WLNP will not be a smooth process because it has never been done before with wireless. Wireless subscribers should also be aware that a change in the phone number from landline to a wireless could make the call a local long distance call for the party making the outbound call to the recipient. What that means then is that if you switch your landline to wireless, your new wireless service provider may have the call initiated or terminated outside of the local calling area designated by the landline phone company. These boundaries do not necessarily follow the established city and county lines.
This will then be a local long distance call which is more expensive than standard long distance calls in most cases. It will be up to the wireless subscriber to research the effect this may have on their switch prior to making this change. You would be well advised to check with both your wireless carrier and the local phone company if you think this is going to be an issue for you. If you are unsure about the effects of this situation on you or your business, a good resource is another trade magazine which focuses on the telecom industry outside of wireless can be found at
www.thedigest.com which has numerous resources for your review.
The FCC has also been performing inspections of wireless carrier facilities set
up for WLNP with about 50% of them visited so far. The comments made were that some carriers were not pleased with WLNP and that Verizon Wireless has fully embraced the WLNP for consumers. Mobile Competency, a research firm says that while wireless carriers are making progress towards being ready to provide LNP, they still have some work to do and what has yet to be done will not be known until they are put to the test.
The rules also allow wireless carriers to pick up a fee not to exceed the cost of conducting the porting of a wireless number. However, the rules do not address the millions of dollars already collected by wireless carriers from wireless subscribers specifically to offset the cost of WLNP implementation and other expenses. No sooner had we written and commented on this article where we noted that there were no surveys that we were aware of which addressed the effect of WLNP on landline carriers that we had the next story drop into our lap.
NEW RESEARCH CAUTIONS HALF OF US COULD SWITCH TO WIRELESS
Nearly half of all us households could switch from a landline phone company to wireless as the FCC's ruling removes barriers. Research confirms significant interest in "wireless substitution" or "displacement" despite high satisfaction rating of wireline service
providers. The FCC ordered this week that wireline customers be allowed to take ("port") their telephone numbers with them if they drop their wireline service for a mobile wireless service.
This order may lead to increased displacement of wireline service by wireless among U.S. households, according to the findings of a recent consumer research report by PriMetrica, Inc. in partnership with Ernst & Young. The study, based on a nationally representative survey of 700 U.S. households conducted during the first quarter of 2003, found that nearly one-half of those households would switch from their primary wireline service to a family-share wireless plan offering 600 shared anytime minutes for $50 per month.
The findings of the study also suggest that perceived quality of service is no longer sufficient to engender loyalty. The average satisfaction rating given by a household to its wireline service provider was high. However, there was no difference in this rating between households who said they would be willing to switch to wireless service (and completely drop their local phone company service) and those who said they would not.
Dr. Kevin Duffy-Deno, Director of Analytical Services at PriMetrica and primary author of the study noted, "Although the study did not directly address phone number portability, the practical implication of these findings is that once households are free to take their wireline phone numbers with them, perceived quality of service from their wireline provider may not be a barrier to their 'cutting the cord' and going with a mobile wireless service for their household voice communications needs."
Most if not all of you who read our publication already know that wireless coverage maps are about as worthless as the paper they are written on. No wireless carrier in their right mind would admit to coverage gaps and they want to put the best light on their coverage areas which is why they provide us with maps that give us nothing more than a general idea of service coverage provided by a specific carrier. It seems that is about to change.
AT&T Wireless was hit with a class action lawsuit in California over their coverage area maps. As a side note, is it is just me or is California becoming known as the consumer advocacy state due to the number of wireless class action lawsuits flying into the courts or what? I don't think there is a single wireless carrier who isn't fighting off a lawsuit in that state. Not that I really care one way or the other, I just thought it was an interesting observation. Back to the topic at hand.
The carrier tried to fight off the lawsuit saying that the Federal laws as set forth by the FCC pre-empted the carrier over the coverage maps. However, a judge in California dismissed this argument and stated that the lawsuit was not pre-empted by Federal laws. On the other hand, the court also dismissed any form of monetary damages being awarded to the plaintiffs. Making it a lawsuit where the attorneys will get nothing other than the appreciation of consumers affected by coverage gaps and dead zones.
The problem that we see is that this lawsuit really does seem to be more about money than the coverage maps. The
plaintiffs have now decided to put off a trial so that they can appeal the court's decision. Not that it is clear but we believe they were referring to the judge stating that there would be no monetary damages awarded because the individuals in the class action lawsuit were not uniformly harmed. If the lawsuit is really about the money, then the court judgment could derail the litigation in
its entirety.
If it isn't then maybe we have a situation where if the case is won, wireless carriers may have to be more specific in the depiction of their wireless coverage maps. Currently, the wireless carriers get around this by placing a disclaimer on their coverage maps stating something to the effect that
the maps may not be entirely accurate or representative of their service coverage areas.
Therefore, you may not want to hold your breath in that coverage maps will increase in their accuracy anytime soon.
THE FULL EFFECTS OF WIRELESS LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY (WLNP)
This one is to help our readers start to get a grip on who is doing what and why. It is also to give you an idea as to what you can expect with the chaos that is about to be
unleashed with WLNP. I might add that the chaos could have been avoided if certain parties had just moved ahead with getting this done. To get a clearer understanding, we will go back to the research report released by Mobile
Competency.
Their report follows the six major wireless carriers. In this report, they show that Sprint PCS and Nextel are the most prepared for WLNP but even they are only 50% ready. None of the wireless carriers have completed testing with the other five major competitors in making sure they have any wrinkles or bugs worked out. In other words, the extensive testing needed to ensure a smooth
transition for consumers has not been done even now.
T Mobile is the only wireless carrier to have signed Service Level Agreements with all of the other nationwide carriers for the purposes of WLNP. The report claims that if WLNP should fail to function properly, the public should expect the wireless industry to blame the FCC. It also cautions the public to take note that the blame should be spread around among the carriers and everyone else who was partaking in the issue of WLNP and therefore the FCC should not be burdened as the sole entity responsible for failure. Rather, a number of parties are responsible for any failures and issues including and to a large degree, the wireless carriers.
Another survey showed that Verizon Wireless would be the winner in WLNP. As have many other surveys. In this specific survey it showed 25% or more consumers would switch to Verizon Wireless. This was followed by T Mobile at 11%, with the remainder coming in at under 10% with AT&T Wireless taking third place.
Nextel came in at fourth place and both Cingular and Sprint PCS tied for fifth place. In this survey, coverage was again the major issue for consumers seeking to make a switch to another provider followed by price.
So far, each and every survey we have seen which was conducted on wireless subscriber preference has
shown Verizon Wireless as being the wireless carrier with the most to gain from WLNP. Which is probably why they embraced WLNP. It is good for their business and their taking the side of consumers may have helped to boost that effect. Although we have mentioned their TV commercial about the wireless guy testing stuff as being old and annoying. They have learned to adapt the
commercials with keeping the same theme. This in turn, keeps the commercial interesting while driving in the message. Wireless service coverage is important.
An area where Verizon Wireless has a distinct advantage over their competitors. With that said, our readers need to keep in mind that the wireless industry in general has been dragging their feet in the implementation of WLNP even though they have collected these millions of dollars on our cell phone bills. To say the least, you have very good and justified reason for being disappointed if WLNP isn't implemented in a timely and efficient manner. Specifically with the fact that the testing with each other on the final hour isn't even close to being done.
Local landline phone companies may find WLNP to be a threat to their current business activities even more so than in the past. It is estimated that around 10 million people now rely solely on a wireless phone for their day to day phone communications. A study also found that around 15% of wireless subscribers would be considering going completely wireless with the implementation of WLNP. A potential loss to landline local phone companies of an additional 22 million phone users.
The FCC has determined that subscribers would be more inclined to transfer their landline to a wireless phone rather than vice versa. Making the rules favoring this type of switch as opposed from going wireless to landline. One industry that may benefit on the fringe of WLNP could be the cable companies. With more people going wireless, they will still want internet service through another means other than dialup. DSL internet service providers might find WLNP to be a boon although smaller in size.
Those of you who want to inquire into the procedures for switching to a specific carrier, we are listing the links to a few in this article. Look at the link to see the name of each carrier. We apologize for any wireless carriers we may have missed.
The word on the street, (no, we aren't referring to Wall Street either) is that Verizon is set to steal a good portion of Nextel's PTT subscribers. So far, Verizon Wireless has signed up about 100,000 new PTT customers during the third quarter. They may be able to clean up a bit more once they expand the number of handsets they have available in their selection and decrease the lag time for PTT connection.
A recent report showed that 66% of Nextel subscribers evaluated Verizon's PTT service in the month of September. Out of that, 33% were specifically looking at the PTT service available from Verizon Wireless. Indicating that Nextel is at risk to lose subscribers and see a serious increase in their churn once Verizon makes progress in improving the available service to match that of Nextel. Because Nextel banked on PTT as their claim to fame, it is now becoming their most vulnerable weakness in their business model.
Just as Verizon Wireless is suffering a setback from the diversity of handsets, Nextel is suffering from a lack of diversity in their offerings as a whole. In which case, Verizon Wireless is in a position to cure their issue much faster and inexpensively compared to Nextel. Adding fuel to the fire is the entrance of Sprint PCS with their new PTT cell phone, the Sanyo SCP-5500. The Sanyo Cell phone has already been approved by the FCC.
The cellular phone will come an integrated digital camera for both picture and video capturing to include text messaging and Java support. The phone also has a dedicated Ready Link (PTT) button. The effect on the entrance of this unit into the offerings of Sprint PCS is expected to have very little if any impact on Verizon Wireless. For the purposes of Nextel, it is yet another threat to their kingdom as the PTT wireless carrier.
It is doubtful that Sprint PCS will pull in the number of subscribers that Verizon Wireless is doing now or will do in the future. However, each and every wireless subscriber they pull onto their PTT service is going to be at the expense of Nextel. To
further complicate the issue for consumers, both Nextel and Sprint PCS lock cell phones to their
networks, making it impossible for consumers to switch their handsets to a new PTT carrier without having to buy a new PTT cell phone for that respective carrier.
Therefore, price and network coverage will probably become the major factors in deciding on which PTT carrier will be selected by both consumers and businesses who find that PTT is a need to have service. Our research has shown that Nextel will often offer a trade in of used Nextel phones to their customers in exchange for a credit on the airtime billing. A strategy employed by both Nextel & Sprint PCS so they can control distribution of new and used handsets while providing customers with an incentive to remain with the company with a
perceived lower airtime billing rate as well as increasing their profit margins.
Based on our review, a strategy that has locked them into a corner and given them very little room in which to
maneuver, whereas the other carriers have an open distribution policy which allows secondary dealers to help distribute and move as many handsets as possible so that the carriers can focus on the airtime billing rather than the
measly profits earned on a handset.
Last but not least, we have Nokia who is planning on rolling out the GSM version of PTT cellular
phones: the Nokia 5140 which will include a camera, flashlight, stopwatch, and
compass, a move that may put Cingular, T Mobile, and AT&T Wirelss into the mix of PTT players. We should expect to see them on the market sometime around May of 2005. Now we will just have to wait and see just how popular PTT will really be as a service.
EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ON THE LATEST RADIATION WAVE SHIELD
What you are about to read is the original email correspondence that went between various parties who were questioning the validity of the latest anti-cell phone radiation shield products. CPN was sent a carbon copy of the message. The correspondence began with a National Executive Director of a religious TV program that has 1.5 million viewers each week. The gentleman it was sent to is an attorney specializing in vitamin products and is currently an affiliate of the anti-cell phone radiation shield company.
The question from the National Executive Director was then forwarded by the affiliate who is an attorney to yet another attorney in South Africa. We thanked them for including us in their correspondence and requested an update on the response. In which case, we got a response from yet another party. This message has not been edited for content.
ORIGINAL EMAIL INQUIRY
There is a new product being advertised by the name of "WaveShield 3000". As you are probably aware, prior to "WaveShield 3000", Comstar Communications, Inc. (Comstar) which markets the products named "WaveShield," "WaveShield 1000," and "WaveShield 2000." have been advertising their products through radio, TV, print and the Internet. In fact, they were sued by the FTC for some products. Now, they have a NEW product (WaveShield 3000).
Prior to WaveShield 3000, WaveShield made misleading representations in the packaging, promotional material, internet website and radio advertising for the Wave Shield device relating to its effectiveness in blocking up to 97% of electromagnetic radiation from [the] inner ear. The Federal Trade Commission in the United States has also taken action against the US distributor of the device.
I would like to know if their NEW product "WaveShield 3000" is legal!!!
Please advise.
(I was interested in becoming a distributor for them. But, I want to make sure that they are legal before I begin marketing their products!)
RESPONSE FROM AFFILIATE
Sam,
You've raised an interesting question.
The FTC says you have to have prior substantiation to make a claim. WaveShield claims it blocks 97% of "near field" radiation to the soft tissue of the ear. To be able to make this claim they are required to have at least one scientifically valid study that shows such blocking.
Here is a copy of the email I just sent WaveShield:
"[Company name deleted for privacy purposes] is an affiliate of yours and has received an inquiry as to what "prior substantiation" WaveShield has for its "blocks 97% of near field radiation from the soft tissue of the ear" claim.
While the claim is on the web site you provide for us, I can't find any refernce to the scientific study (I recall some reference being there in the past).
I'd like to keep [the] many links to the affiliate page up, so please reply with the reference to the substantiation."
RESPONSE FROM THIRD PARTY REPRESENTING ANTI CELL PHONE RADIATION SHIELD
(Note: the party writing this response did not identify themselves or provide any identifying information)
All business people with distributors have to rely on their distributors to follow the rules, tell the truth about their product and services. When they do not the head office suffers by association with anyone who misrepresents or exaggerates the merits of their products or services. In 02/01 the FTC. launched lawsuits against a company in Florida S.V.1- Safe-T-Shield and a distributor, of the Wave Shield in California, Comstar. Both these companies exaggerated claims about their products. Interact Communications Inc. the producer of the Wave shield was not being sued but the media made them guilty by association by including the word “Wave Shield” in their news story. When informed of these allegations Interact immediately terminated the distributor Comstar, voluntarily sent samples of product and testing and marketing materials to the FTC. along with a copy of a radio talk show where it was made very clear what our products claimed to do.
The potential danger of cell phones has spawned a new industry in the past three years with companies marketing a variety of shields making exaggerated claims about their effectiveness in blocking radiation from cell phones with little or no scientific proof. These “phone decorations” with no valid testing and virtually no testing on phones from an accredited testing authority has created some confusion for consumers. The Wave Shield has been extensively tested on phones by an FCC. listed lab here in the U.S. Global Certification Lab as well as by Cetecom ,Germany which approved our shield and allows us to place the CE mark on our packages in Europe telling consumers the Wave Shield is proven and tested, and by the Health Dept. Russian Federation , who approved the Wave Shield for re-sale in Russia.
The FTC. is a consumer protection department of the U.S. govt. designed to protect consumers against false and misleading advertising. They rely on outside sources for information. In the case of radiation shields for cell phones they relied on the cell phone industry whose agenda is based on protecting their image and their products. They told the FTC . that cell phone shields do not work, interfere with the reception and that cell phone radiation levels are so low as to not affect humans. Meanwhile the BBC reported two years ago as noted in the London Daily Mail and the New York Post that the cell phone mfgs. have a patent to put a shield in phones. Why would they do that when they told the FTC. that phones were safe and shields do not work. Here we are two years later and they have not put shields in phones because of the certainty of lawsuits over lying to the public.
Here in the U.S. we are told there is no proof cell phones cause cancer or tumors-well there is no proof they do not and recent studies in Europe indicate a stronger possibility they do. An independent reporting site cprnews.com has listed over 100 studies and research reported around the world on cell phone dangers over the past two years.
The Wave Shield makes no claims to block all the radiation from the antenna or the radiation circulating through the cell phone. Our focus and testing was on that portion coming through the holes you listen through and entering the soft tissue of the ear when you place the phone against your ear. This portion called Near Field Radiation was our focus for two reasons.
1. The highest absorption rate of radiation in the body is in the ear. Even Dr. Velli Santomia of Nokia stated this fact in Microwave news , April/2000.
2. Most of the reports of tumors are right behind the ear, not on the chin, forehead or the other ear. Thus our focus on this “near field” of radiation.
3. Global Certification Lab, tested our Wave Shields on phones and found that our series 1000/3000 blocked up to 97% of this near field radiation from entering the ear and the series 2000 gold Wave shield blocked up to 99% of this portion coming through the ear piece.
Note to Readers: The only point we would dispute in the argument sent in the response is the one referring to the "unproven" theory of cellular phones not causing cancer or other ailments. We subscribe to a more scientific adherence of what is proven and unproven out of necessity. In this case, we see proof as being a situation where something doesn't exist unless it can be proven to exist on a consistent and uniform basis or it can be found to exist with a reasonable application through a process of elimination.
Just as the response claims, people and other entities are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof to indicate otherwise is on the other party. This means that the other party must provide evidence that something did or does exist to substantiate their claims. They are not required to prove something does not exist because a reasonable (if not challenging and difficult) effort with a process of elimination cannot be applied. In an attempt to be fair, this publication will cry "foul" anytime a comment of proving something doesn't exist is put forward to advance one side of the argument unless the party presenting the challenge is able to perform the same request made of the opposing party.
THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION FOR WIRELESS LOCAL NUMBER PORTING
With less than a month to go before number portability rules go into effect for the wireless industry, VoiceLog announces a special Third Party Verification package, designed specifically for wireless companies. Under the new plan, wireless companies can use speech-recognition-driven third party verification to confirm their customer’s desire to move their wireless number from one service to another at a special reduced rate. In addition, carriers who sell bundled packages - including local and long distance services in combination with wireless orders - will benefit from special discounts.
VoiceLog developed the new program in order to give wireless carriers a tool to document customer requests to change wireless carriers while porting telephone numbers to another carrier. This product will allow wireless carriers to defend themselves against complaints by competitors, customers, or state or federal consumer protection agencies that numbers were ported to a new service provider without customer agreement.
"Third party verification is the perfect solution to ensuring that customers get the services they ordered,” said Larry Leikin, Vice President of VoiceLog. “TPV is a time-tested, fast and cost-effective method to prevent customers from having their numbers changed to a different carrier without their permission and to minimize disputes between carriers. In fact, although TPV is now an FCC requirement for many orders, it was originally developed by AT&T and MCI as a way for those carriers to avoid disputes between each other. Regardless of whether it’s required by the regulations, we believe many carriers will choose TPV for its business appeal.”
In addition to protecting customers from unauthorized switches in carriers, VoiceLog offers a variation on Third Party Verification that satisfies the requirements of the federal E-Sign Act. Under the Act, electronic signatures are treated as valid and binding as traditional signatures. VoiceLog allows a customer to
"sign" an electronic contract for cellular services using only a telephone, thus enabling cellular carriers to close sales of cellular services over the telephone, without requiring the physical signature of the customer.
In addition to its verification services, VoiceLog now offers Call Center Recording Services, allowing call centers to have full-time recording and monitoring capabilities on a “pay as you go” basis. VoiceLog Call Center Recording services include full-time and on-demand recording, quality monitoring and record scoring, transcription, and recording storage and archival.
We have to write these pieces because our crystal ball is cracked and it doesn't give us a clear picture of the future. Rather we get glimpses of the things to come. Because this publication is the most valuable of any trade magazine you may ever read, all readers must donate at least five peanuts and a dog biscuit. The peanuts are for my dinner and the biscuits are to keep the Hounds of Hell off my trail.
Kodiak Networks, a little known and hidden company, finally came to the forefront to announce their unveiling of a new type of PTT technology. Unlike many others being tested, this one uses a voice network
instead of VOIP. It is said to have a network latency of only 150 milliseconds with a connect time of about 2 to 3 seconds. Slightly longer than the one second
connect noted by Nextel. The PTT service is even more unusual in that the service allows subscribers to use the same phone to connect with subscribers with different wireless carriers provided they use the same PTT technology. To learn more about them, go to
www.kodiaknetworks.com
Metro PCS has announced a new plan to promote further competition. For only $40 per month, subscribers to Metro PCS can get unlimited wireless long distance and local calls without a contract. The company
launched about a year ago and has nearly a million subscribers to date. The goal of the company is to help consumers cut their ties to the local landline phone and switch to a wireless service such as they provide. MetroPCS Inc., headquartered in Dallas, holds licenses to offer local
wireless phone service to customers who live, work and play in and around the metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Miami, San Francisco and Sacramento.
We have estimated that there are now about 3.5 million cellular phone accessories retailers selling their wares online not including auction sites. 97% of these retailers offer no form of contacting them other than using email or an online form and are assumed to be one or two man enterprises. There are another million online companies selling cellular phones via the internet, and about 500,000 comparison sites with a segment for cellular phone comparisons. Give or take a couple of hundred thousand companies either way. We would estimate another 4 million informational websites that focus on some segment of the wireless industry. Less than .01% of those websites focus entirely on the wireless industry or cover the wireless industry to a significant degree.
We have seen cellular phone leather cases and car chargers selling for as low as $1.99 each with pricing as high as $9.99 each. Cell phone batteries going for as low as $9.99 each and up to $49.99 each. The bottom line is that your options and choices are unlimited so make it a point to shop around. The best pricing has been found with aftermarket or generic accessories at 50% to 70% less than the Original Equipment Manufactured (OEM) accessories.
Cell Phone manufacturers Nokia and Motorola are making headway into other markets. To our pleasant surprise and shock, Nokia is planning on rolling out their first clamshell phone. The Nokia 7200 GSM series for the US market should be coming to market soon. Will it be enough to compete with Motorola's success with the V60 series clamshell? Only time will tell. Speaking of which, Sprint PCS has decided that the success of the Motorola V60 series clamshell phone can no longer be ignored and
it is now being added to their line up of phones to be available to consumers. The
implementation of LNP is causing strange events which are very good for consumers.
The CTIA, an association known for its political lobbying of legislators against the implementation of WLNP has thrown in the towel. The association is now headed by a former congressman of Oklahoma. He stated now that CTIA has thrown in the towel and will not take the position of Verizon Wireless with embracing WLNP but they will still fight for the landline to wireless portability to be implemented. The National Association of Regulatory Utlitiy Commissoners is wary of the concession and plans on standing by for any last minute challenges to WLNP.
Rogers AT&T Wireless and AT&T Wireless have made a pact to allow subscribers to cross the northern border.
Subscribers of the two carriers will be able to take advantage of a suite of
services, making AT&T Wireless the second major carrier to reach a border crossing agreement. Another carrier had previously reached an agreement to expand south of the border into Mexico. All of which is leading to a strongly united North American continent.
BE WARY OF CALLS FOR RECYCLING USED CELLULAR PHONES
In light of the Wireless Local Number Portability issue being implemented, we have heard many companies suddenly calling for a friendly approach to the environment with recycling cellular phones. Normally, we would praise this kind of activity, however, we also found that there was a catch to this sudden about face by many companies who see the light. That light is probably more the color of greenbacks rather than white.
We went around checking on these companies that called for recycling of used cellular phones. Some say it is for charity and others claim that it is to be recycled in other countries. Then we find the truth behind it all. For example, donating to a cause such as domestic violence. Typically the phones are rebuilt and sold through the secondary market rather than being given to victims who need a unit in which to call 911 for emergency purposes.
The company running the charity program then dictates what they feel is the most beneficial use of those funds towards that effort. In almost all cases, we found one consistent theme among these companies asking for you to recycle unwanted cellular phones. They only want specific models and types of units in good working condition and have been fairly recent as far as being in demand. In other words, don't send in any units that they can't rebuild and sell at a profit. Don't send in the batteries and chargers. Dispose of them yourself because these companies don't want to pay the shipping charge for the extra weight.
Nor do they want to pay the cost of having the batteries and other unwanted accessories to be scrapped and recycled. They won't take older analog phones or many of the older TDMA and CDMA units that used to be used by AT&T Wireless and Cingular before they converted to GSM or Verizon before they upgraded their networks. They only want units they can rebuild at minimal cost to be exported to countries such as South America at a substantial profit to their companies.
We see it as an attempt to hoodwink the environmentally conscious people who want to do the right thing. What do you do with those cellular phone models that don't have an immediate demand? It seems that you would have no choice but to throw them in the trash because these supposed cellular phone recycling companies won't take them in because they can't make a profit on them.
Talk about flying false colors. I don't suppose I would have a problem with it if they were
truthful about it. But using the environment as a banner on which to collect used cellular phones in the hopes of building up inventory for profit is far beyond being inappropriate. It should be held in contempt. Another interesting fact that we found was that the larger the recycling company, the less likely that they were willing to pay for a specific model. Smaller recycling companies were willing to pay a couple or three dollars more for the exact same unit.
When we collect and donate phones to charities, we make sure they are to be directly distributed to potential victims or they don't get the phones. Failing to find a suitable charity, we will sell the phones at a fraction of the cost to a recycling company. We sell them for peanuts but we also insist they take everything including the batteries to help offset their cost of scrapping the parts and pieces.
The few dollars made from that kind of sale is then applied to some expense that may be required to research new material that we would like to place on our website for the public to access at no charge or in some cases given to a needy family. At least that way, we know that the money was spent on something that had a community value. For example, on the most recent sale of a small lot of phones, the money went to a single mother
who was so poor and a victim of domestic violence that she couldn't afford to buy her kids any Xmas presents.
It wasn't much but at least the kids could get some new clothes, maybe a couple of books, and other things that they really needed. We actually pitched in a few bucks out of our own pockets to make it a little more than it would have been with just the sale of the cell phones. Either way, we don't pocket the cash to fund our operations because the phone units were not donated to us for that purpose. They were recycled to help the environment and other people who may benefit from the generosity of another.
Therefore, if there are any companies out there that pick up cell phones strictly for the purposes of recycling the scrap material, they should step up to be noticed and fill in the gap that is being created. The current trend along with the implementation of LNP means that there are going to be millions of cellular phones that cannot be easily recycled. Probably not that many though since only 5% of plastic material is recycled. If anyone can figure out how to press mold
ground up plastic similar to a use like plywood, they will probably become overnight millionaires and save thousands of trees.
SPRINT PCS ROLLS OUT CELLULAR PHONE WITH TV SERVICE
Didn't we say in the past that TVs and cell phones would one day become a reality. They are here now thanks to Sprint PCS. However, I need to add that it isn't exactly like what you see on your current TV. The technology still has a way to go but so did the airplane when it was first invented. The evolution of cellular phones will advance to a point that in ten years' time, what we have now will be considered ancient. Now, getting back to the point.
Sprint PCS is going to be offering a service called MobiTV. It will cost subscribers the $15 per month access fee that they pay for accessing the mobile internet plus an additional $9.99 per month. Currently the only channels available will be CNBC, ABC, Discover, The Learning Channel, and MSNBC. The streaming video will be a bit slower than regular TV with showing only a frame per second. Possibly two frames per second. When watching TV on a set, the rate is 20 frames per second.
What you will see on you cell phone will be nearly identical to that which is playing on the TV at that same time. Basically, you will be watching TV in real time with a bit of a lag. Warnings have been issued stating that subscribers will have to remember that it is a cell phone. Which means the connection can be dropped which will mean the program is gone until you can re-establish a connection.
It is expected that the streaming video rate will improve as early as next year. Even so, the fact that Sprint PCS was able to integrate a TV into a cellular phone for use on a wireless network still makes them a pioneer wireless carrier. Other handset manufacturers such as Sanyo are trying to skip this step with taking a
less expensive route by building in TVs that allow for users to access local TV channels. A good idea for the short term.
But allowing for local TV access would still be a short term fix to a gap that would increase as consumer demand and expectations rise. Sprint PCS is taking the right step by investing in the technology now to stay ahead of competitors who may eventually roll out this type of service. The reason we say that is because many people may find local TV too limited to be of significant value. Instead, they may want to be able to access other TV channels that are more suitable to their interests.
The first assumption that may come to mind is that local TV would be good for sports fanatics. With using the integrated wireless access TV, subscribers will still have to pay for airtime. Trying to watch a two hour sports game would definitely start burning up minutes. However, that can be solved by upgrading to a plan that offers more minutes per month. On the other hand, I doubt that sports channels would like to have their programs available via wireless without some precautions.
Though I don't usually watch team sports but other sports such as boxing, Strong Man, and Sumo wrestling, team sports are subject to blackouts. It would be interesting to see how wireless carriers would handle that and what they would do to ensure that blackouts were enforced via a wireless device. Most likely it would go by area code or something but it would still require some work along with a financial investment. Maybe Sanyo will have a niche market after all.
STATES RAIDING E911 FUNDS CAUSES PROBLEMS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY
I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if it would be legal to sue states for failing to protect public safety. Why do I ask? A recent congressional investigation showed that only 24 states, less than half would be ready to deploy and offer E911 services with wireless phones by 2005. That means that if you get into a problem and the line is disconnected, the 911 operators will have no way to try and locate you in the event of an emergency situation.
Many states are several years out from being able to actually deploy the service. Which raises the question, why weren't these states building out these services with the funds they collected from wireless users all these years? The answer. The state administrators and politicians were overspending on programs they thought would get them more votes by currying favor with various community and special interest groups so they raided the E911 funds to cover the deficits in the state budget.
There is very little or no money available to even being implementing these services by many states. The problem is so bad that even the wireless industry is upset about it since they were forced to invest millions of dollars in making sure the service was available to the public. Now that they have done that, the states are not even close to being prepared to put the service into practice.
This is something that should make people mad. Not only is your safety in jeopardy but that of your family and friends. Politicians will have no excuse for raiding e911 funds for covering budget deficits because public safety should be foremost above all else especially when people are paying taxes specifically for that reason. It is a real shame that our tax dollars are being diverted to programs that represent a minority of taxpayers of both an individual or commercial status.
People need to get out and vote if this kind of thing is going to be stopped. I am a moderate myself. I don't believe in destroying the environment and I don't believe in paying for social programs that give people $60 a month just so parents will tell their kids to brush their teeth. Being a responsible parent shouldn't require a financial reward. We are paying too much for stupidity as it is without adding public safety to the sacrifice. Think about this situation like this one. If your spouse, child, or family member couldn't be saved because the 911 operator couldn't locate them, what price tag would you put on that experience.
Don't quote me on this but I believe that states are immune from lawsuits of this type that would seek damages. Therefore, the only option we have as the public is to rid the political ranks of those who find it convenient to spend our hard earned money on their pet projects just to further their political careers. The next question we will have to ask ourselves is when is enough, enough? I am thinking right now would be a good place to start.
PLEASE TELL YOUR FRIENDS, FAMILY, AND ASSOCIATES ABOUT OUR NEWSLETTER. WE APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE IN MAKING OUR NEWSLETTER A SUCCESS.
If you want your name to vanish from our list because our newsletter is just too boring or someone else signed you up, let us know. We will reluctantly take you off of our newsletter list. And we still reserve the right to make faces at you when you aren't looking. Copyright notice: Information contained on this website may not be reprinted or distributed in full or in part without the express permission of Cellular Phone News.