Subject: [IP] more on for Californians AB 2231 Emergency alerts
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Frankston <Bob2email@example.com> Date: March 31, 2006 4:14:47 PM EST To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Cc: Paul Saffo <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: [IP] for Californians AB 2231 Emergency alerts
Are the messages sent to the phones based on where they are or the bill goes? Can anyone explain how sending the alerts cost them money? If they don't understand the difference between what they charge customers and their non-costs then we should worry about their ability to run a company. Getting out emergency messages may be the least of their problems. Those who accept that argument shouldn't be in the position to set policy. That said, the real solution is to provide connectivity and make it easy for the devices to get messages based on alert criteria such as being in the path of a tornado (as determined by GPS and/or the proximate access points)
-----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 06:09 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: [IP] for californians AB 2231 Emergency alerts
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paul Saffo <email@example.com> Date: March 31, 2006 12:19:57 AM EST To: Dave Farber <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: (For IP) AB 2231 Emergency alerts
Dave- I am writing this on behalf of Tamara Odisho ( Tamara.Odisho@asm.ca.gov ), a Legislative Aide to Assemblymember Fran Pavley. Pavley has introduced a bill ( http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/ bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2231_bill_20060222_introduced.html ) to the California Legislature, proposing that cell providers be required to provide customers with text alerts in the event of a severe emergency such as a flood or wildfire.
It turns out that the cellular companies oppose the bill and are likely to lobby against it. The stated reasons for opposition are: 1- This should be left to the FCC to implement a plan at the national level. (Ha! If California had followed this logic, we would never have forced the auto industry to clean up its emissions act!) 2- Requiring the cell phone companies to send out state-wide emergency text-messages would jam the system, and therefore not reach all their customers 3- The cell cos don't want to pay the cost of sending out the messages.
Tamara and her colleagues have several questions, and would love feedback from anyone who might have advice/suggestions. Here are her questions (note that I have not edited them as I am merely a conduit): 1. Can wireless companies' infrastructure handle such a statewide text-message emergency alert? In other words, will this jam up the system?
2. Do wireless providers have the technology to area specify the emergency alerts, ie, if there's an earthquake in Los Angeles, would wireless providers be able to only send out the text message to Los Angeles residents?
3. Are technological capabilities available to broadcast the text message to a certain area/region and send the message to providers not registered in that area code, ie Thailand tsunami had vacationers from all over the world, if an emergency alert was sent out, would all vacationers be able to receive the message?
4. If a wireless company sends out the alert, would they be limited to a specific number of characters?
5. If necessary, would text message be able to be delivered in multiple languages? 6. Do you have an estimated cost to the providers of what this type of implementation system would cost the providers?
Anyone who has suggestions should feel free to contact Tamara directly at Tamara.Odisho@asm.ca.gov , or if you prefer, email me and I will pass your comments on.
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Powered by eList eXpress LLC