Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

The opt-in was not a market decision - I disagree. It was a
congressional and FCC mandate stemmed from the WARN Act resulting in the
FCC Part 10 rules.

ATOCA does not fall under that.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:15 PM
To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
Cc: earlywarning@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

The opt-in was a market decision, not a requirement.

If ATOCA builds a different solution, it too will be a market decision
to
offer or not.

-Marc-

On 4/7/10 4:09 PM, "DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <BD2985@att.com> wrote:

> But those operators that opt-in must follow the FCC Part 10 rules for
> CMAS. So I do nto understand your comment.
> 
> Brian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:08 PM
> To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
> Cc: earlywarning@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
> 
> CMAS was opt-in by the carriers, not a requirement....??
> 
> -Marc-
> 
> 
> On 4/7/10 3:56 PM, "DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <BD2985@att.com> wrote:
> 
>> The second is more than a market decision - it is an interaction with
> a
>> regulatory requirement.
>> 
>> Perhaps a better way to phrase is as follows:
>> 
>> "Additionally, ATOCA will not interfere with nor replace solutions
>> designed to meet regulatory requirements for any authority to citizen
>> alerting of any access technology."
>> 
>> Brian Daly
>> AT&T
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org
>> [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ken carlberg
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 12:48 PM
>> To: SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)
>> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; earlywarning@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:30 AM, SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW) wrote:
>> 
>>> "The ATOCA solutions will not adversely affect the ability of any
>> access
>>> technology to provide emergency services to the citizens (e.g. 9-1-1
>>> calls) or to provide communication services to first responders or
>> other
>>> authorized emergency services personnel.  Additionally, ATOCA is not
>>> replacement solution for any authority to citizen alerting supported
>> by
>>> any access technology."
>> 
>> given the previous thread on this list, I'm a bit leery of that first
>> sentence.  But, if it were agreed to add it in, then I would expect
> the
>> individuals who make a claim that an ATOCA solution adversely affects
>> 9-1-1 type calls will be required to prove it instead of simply
> stating
>> a position.
>> 
>> as for the second sentence, that is out of scope of the IETF.  any
>> deployment of what is considered an ATOCA solution is a market
> decision.
>> 
>> -ken
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> earlywarning mailing list
>> earlywarning@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>> _______________________________________________
>> earlywarning mailing list
>> earlywarning@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> 
> 