Yet another device is having problems making emergency calls in Canada.
Last week, Bell warned its customers that the new Apple Watch Series 3 may not provide location information to the public safety bureaus when calling 9-1-1. Bell says that it is working with its technology partners to resolve the issue.
Who should take responsibility for devices that weren’t sold by the service provider? In July, we learned that certain Asus Zenphone devices were unable to complete emergency calls at all until the operating system was updated. The Asus issue raises the question of who consumers should approach for a remedy when buying a phone from an independent electronics retailer. Will they return to the store for technical support or call their service provider? Who tests and certifies compatibility for these devices?
In its Wireless Code update this past June, the CRTC implemented measures to make it even easier for consumers to get their devices unlocked and move them from one service provider to another. Although the CRTC Chair at the time said that “The changes and clarifications we are announcing today will give Canadians additional tools to make informed choices about their wireless services and take advantage of competitive offers in the marketplace”, I am unable to see any information provided by the CRTC about compatibility of unlocked devices on various networks.
Did the CRTC even hear evidence about the ability for advanced features to operate correctly on devices moved from one service provider to another? Do consumers know that not all devices work on all networks? Are service providers expected to provide support for devices that have not been purchased from their stores?
As an example, the new iPhone 8 was reported to be able to operate on Band 66, frequencies used by Freedom Mobile, but some users observed difficulties. Freedom Mobile told MobileSyrup that it “can only confirm that LTE-Ready devices sold by Freedom Mobile are guaranteed to function with our network on Band 66 spectrum. We cannot guarantee the compatibility of any iPhones brought to our network.”
Has the CRTC created unrealistic user expectations? In case of trouble with their phones, who should users call?
The new moon on Wednesday evening marks the start of Rosh Hashana, the beginning of the Jewish year 5778. Our offices will be closed on Thursday and Friday.
Rosh Hashana [literally, “head of the year”], begins a 10 day period of personal reflection, culminating in Yom Kippur. In religious services, we hear the piercing trumpet blast from a shofar [ram’s horn], triggering a period of personal and communal introspection, examining the past year while looking forward to improvement in the year ahead. The family dinners usually feature a number of traditional foods, like honey [for a sweet year], but it is very different from the kind of festivities and partying that mark the transition from December 31 to January 1.
It is my hope that 5778 will be marked by good health, by personal and professional growth and may it also be a year of peace for all of us.
Do we need to limit the amortization period for devices in the Wireless Code? The subject was raised by Bell in its intervention on Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2017-259 [Reconsideration of WiFi Roaming]:
Instead of mandating access for Wi-Fi-first mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), a far more effective measure to address the affordability concerns of low- and middle-income Canadians would be for the Commission to extend the maximum contract length under the Wireless Code from two years to four years, allowing Canadians who wish to do so to reduce the upfront cost of a wireless device with less of an impact on their monthly bill.
We can argue all you want about whether this proceeding was the right place to introduce the subject, but the fact remains that the Wireless Code has raised consumer costs significantly by virtue of the simple mathematics of amortization. Amortizing a device over 2 years instead of 3 means monthly payments are 50% higher. Last year I wrote about a number of regulatory factors that increase consumer bills.
Now Apple has introduced the iPhone X with a Canadian price point in the order of $1300 [the 256 GB version will sell for an additional $220]. Most Canadian phone subsidies have been in the order of $35 per month, which results in $840 over two years. That implies an up-front price of about $450 for consumers. That could lead to more sticker shock than anyone would want to see, inhibiting adoption of these new high-end devices. Alternatively, carriers may raise the subsidy by $15 per month to $50 per month to enable a more reasonable $100 down-payment.
What purpose is actually served by limiting device amortization to 2 years?
Customers can still switch at will anytime during the contract period. They just have to pay off the balance owing. With higher device costs, people have hefty balances owing anyway, whether it is a two or three year contract.
Eliminating the regulatory restriction on longer contracts could lead to carriers offering direct consumer incentives to switch: “Come to us and we will pay up to $600 of your remaining balance.”
Once the Commission allowed consumers the right to leave a carrier by simply paying off the remaining balance, what purpose is served by the further regulation of how long the amortization period could be?
Perhaps more faith could be placed in the marketplace to create more competitive offers. In the alternative, Canadians may find the price of new devices is just too high.
September 10, 2017 September 10, 2017 / 2 Comments
Another milestone birthday this past weekend provides an opportunity (and an excuse) to reflect. Jewish tradition wishes upon us a long life, until 120, the age Moses was said to have died. In his case, it was said that his vision not dimmed “nor his natural force abated.” [Deuteronomy 34:7] I should be so lucky. I have been working in the telecommunications industry for more than 37 years now, and I don’t think my “natural force” has abated.
If I do make it to 120, then as of today, I’ve made it to the turn, moving now to start playing the back 9. I will take the opportunity to wax somewhat philosophically in today’s post.
I get a great feeling of satisfaction when I think about some of the people with whom I have worked, people who mentored me and those who I have mentored. I was greatly influenced in my management style by my first boss at Bell Labs, Dick Grantges, who was said to have caused concern because of his supervisory style: “Dick’s people seem to get their work done, but they always look like they are having too much fun.” When he showed me around the Holmdel Labs for the first time, he paused as we reached a spot that overlooked the reflecting ponds at the front of the building. As I have written before, “he sighed and said that one of the things he liked best about working at Bell Labs is that if you get your best ideas while gazing out the windows, then we’ll pay you to stare at geese.”
Dave Hagan, who is now CEO at Boingo, had a similar perspective when we worked together at Sprint Canada. He would say that it shouldn’t be called “going to work”; we should be “going to fun.”
Whatever you choose to do with your life, find something that you enjoy doing and hopefully do it with other people who are also enjoying doing it with you.
I have learned that not every voice on Twitter deserves a reply. I don’t have to engage with everyone. Some people are beyond my skill set to help. To paraphrase Dr. McCoy from Star Trek: I am a telecommunications professional, not a proctologist.
I am really proud of the accomplishments of many of the people who I have had work with me, many of whom still hold senior leadership positions in the industry around the world. We have made some significant and lasting impacts on the telecommunications sector. As I wrote in June, we still stay in touch, though not frequently enough.
More than anything, I have been blessed with a wonderful family, inspired by my parents and supported by my wife of more than 36 years. My kids, and my grandkids, have always taken precedence over my career. Fortunately, most of the time when I was in a corporate environment, I had bosses who shared my priorities. There are countless examples, including one of my favourite moments from a little over 25 years ago. Preparing for CRTC hearings was a stressful and intense time: in the olden days, witnesses were sworn in (or affirmed) and opposing parties had an opportunity to cross-examine. Just before the Long Distance hearings opened in 1991, we were preparing in Ottawa with our law team. My daughter’s birthday was during the week before the hearings opened and her teacher had planned a special celebration. I flew back to Toronto for a couple hours, kept a cab waiting at the school to rush me back to the airport so we could continue the hearing preparations – flying was a lot easier then. The teacher went over to my wife and said “it is so nice that your husband has the kind of job that allows him to get away for a few minutes.” I hope that my kids are as fortunate.
Last October, I wrote about reflecting on my back pages, looking back on the earlier days of my career, working on national security network architectures, ending communications monopolies. Those were heady times when I was half as old as I am today. I may have added another year, but as Bob Dylan wrote, I still like to think that I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now.
My eyes may be slightly dimmed, but having spent the past month in the company of my 3 year old and 10 month old grandkids, I can attest that my natural force is still strong.
From the time I was very young, I remember my dad teaching us that what ever you do, always aim to be the very best. He would remind us that Louis B. Mayer, the founder of MGM Studios, was a junk dealer in my dad’s home town of Saint John, NB.
So my advice to my kids and grandkids can be summed up best as: find a career doing something you love doing; aim to be the best at what you do; find people who share your values to do it with; and, remember that family should always come first.
I think I still have plenty of natural force left in me, so I am ready to start playing the back nine. Let’s tee it up and have some more fun.
Yet another example of why public safety broadband MUST be built to public safety reliability standards, commercial levels arent good enough https://t.co/pEJ3UhMKnU
I am not as convinced that Hurricane Harvey proves the need to build a stand alone public safety network engineered to different reliability standards. Not only were some 9-1-1 centers knocked out by the storm, as the Ars Technica article described, but first response systems were also disabled:
The cause was visible across the county: Tall structures, trees and signs were folded with ease by the 130-mile-per-hour winds that enclosed the eye of the storm.
That included the signal tower outside the centrally located Rockport Police Department.
Emergency radio channels were unavailable, and first responders were limited to “shortwave radios that span only a couple miles,” said Matt Jamison, a volunteer firefighter from Fulton.
“There’s a lot of people using that one channel, and it’s not really effective when you’re trying to do a large-scale search-and-rescue (operation),” Jamison said.
Comedian Ron White sums it up nicely when he describes the experience of trying to survive hurricane force winds. It isn’t THAT the wind is blowing 130 MPH; it is WHAT the wind is blowing.
With a back-to-school theme in mind, there are three R’s to keep in mind as we architect a national public safety network solution: resilience, robustness and reliability.
Can we realistically expect a new private public safety network to be more resilient, more robust, more reliable or for that matter, more ubiquitous than having access to multiple public commercial networks? Would first response applications achieve greater reliability by having the ability to simultaneously connect to diverse networks operating on different towers and across different frequency bands?
There are lessons to be learned from Hurricane Harvey for communications networks professionals. The answer to increased network reliability might be found in smarter, multi-carrier user equipment.
