Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

Brian,

>From 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281433A1.pdf

"Wireless carriers that choose to participate"

Or
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cmas.html

"wireless service providers that voluntarily choose to participate in CMAS"

I take that to mean wireless carriers could chose not to participate, hence
the decision to participate is driven by something other than regulatory
requirement.

It's good that ATOCA doesn't fall under the FCC rules.  The hope is that a
ATOCA solution would be far more functional than any regulatory requirement.

-Marc-

On 4/7/10 4:17 PM, "DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <BD2985@att.com> wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 