August 18, 2000

Jeng Mao
Public Safety Program
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Room 4624
1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230

Verizon Wireless Messaging Services, LLC ("VZWMS"), through its attorneys, hereby submits its comments in response to the request for comment in All-Hazard Warning, Docket No. 000609173-0173-01 ("the Request"). The following is respectfully submitted:

VZWMS is one of the largest providers of one-way and two-way paging and messaging services in the United States with approximately 3.5 million units in service. VZWMS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Verizon Wireless, the largest wireless company in the United States whose business is focused on mobile and fixed wireless applications. VZWMS was one of the first messaging companies to embrace the use of the Internet and other technologies to allow users to access diverse information while they are mobile. Accordingly, VZWMS is particularly well qualified to comment in this docket.

VZWMS applauds the effort of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (the "Administration") to explore means to improve the domestic hazard warning system. In the view of VZWMS, the goal must be to foster a warning system that is, above all, reliable so that the public can rely upon it with confidence. Establishing a faulty or ill-conceived system could create a sense of false security and prove completely counterproductive.

In the Request, the Administration seeks comment on whether "it is technologically feasible today to deliver hazard warnings to wireless devices, such as pagers." In some respects, VZWMS views this as the wrong question to ask. While it may be technologically feasible to deliver hazard warnings through wireless devices, such as one-way alphanumeric and two-way pagers, for the reasons set forth below, such an approach poses significant problems which could lead to it not succeeding as a warning system.

As a starting point, the Administration needs to understand the call delivery process over existing messaging systems. Alphanumeric paging services and narrowband personal communications services ("NPCS") today deliver text messages and other information to subscribers for a fee. Messages can be sent in the form of electronic mail (e-mail) using alphanumeric entry devices as well as via the public switched telephone network. Messages may also be sent to subscribers individually or to multiple recipients (so called "group calls"). Individual messages are sent to unique addresses contained in each pager. Group call messages are sent using common addresses (common capcodes), which are hardcoded into the pagers, for all recipients of the message. Group messages, which provide common information to all recipients simultaneously, utilize much less airtime than individualized messages that must be sent to recipients in seriatum. Group messages also ensure that all subscribers receive the message at approximately the same time.

To date, commercial messaging systems have been used only to a limited extent to provide emergency notification services. For example, some emergency service providers (e.g., rescue services, ambulance services, etc.) subscribe to commercial messaging services in order to be able to notify personnel of an emergency situation. Generally, however, such subscriptions occur only after the customer has determined that the commercial system meets the particularized needs of the emergency agency in terms of coverage, reliability, and system congestion. Otherwise, emergency services are likely to utilize systems on dedicated emergency channels that need not be shared with other non-emergency commercial users. When commercial systems are used by emergency personnel, the service generally is designed on a group call basis so that notifications can be sent quickly.

Paging carriers also offer certain individualized services to customers (so called "push information services"). These include news and weather information that can be used to notify subscribers of emergency conditions. However, as is discussed in greater detail below, there are inherent limitations to providing such services that have prevented them from becoming relied upon as a primary source of hazard warning for most users.

Messaging services, like all wireless services, are subject to a host of limitations imposed by atmospheric conditions, terrain, building penetration, vegetation, and electrical interference. One-way messaging services, in many instances, do not notify the user when the unit is either out of range or in an area with weak signal coverage. In addition, in many instances when NPCS devices are out of range or do not have adequate signal strength, they will store messages until the device returns to an adequate coverage area, but in many instances the device will only notify the user of such out of range or weak coverage condition after a set period of time (in the range of minutes). Accordingly, in many instances users may not know that they are not receiving messages and may not know to turn to some other form of hazard warning information (such as radio, television, or NOAA weather radio). Finally, unlike broadcast emergency services, such as radio and television, in which the listener can discern the hazard warning even when in a poor coverage areas, in many instances the pager or NPCS device will not give the user any message at all.

Messaging systems typically use a maximum rate of 6400 baud to transmit messages. The low baud rate imposes significant capacity limitations on messaging systems and restricts the number of individual messages that can be delivered at one time. As a result, messaging systems are optimized for relatively low call arrival rates, and may have severe capacity limitations if hazard warnings are delivered in individualized messages rather than in a group call format.

Some VZWMS subscribers have experimented with the use of VZWMS' messaging system to have weather-related information delivered to themselves and the results were not encouraging. Generally, the customer would subscribe to an individualized push information service offered by a third party and designed to send messages in the form of e-mails to one-way and two-way pagers when certain events occur – such as the issuance of a severe storm warning by the National Weather Service. It has been VZWMS’ experience that when a severe weather event occurred, the number of individualized messages sent to its subscribers quickly saturated the system and resulted in delayed messages to all users, and in some instances, the complete outage of the messaging system. When a paging system crashes, all messages in queue are lost, which obviously is a matter of concern (particularly if emergency service personnel are subscribers and depend on the system for notification).

Another consequence of the speed limitation of messaging systems is that not all hazard warnings may be delivered on a timely basis. If a significant number of individualized hazard messages are delivered to a messaging network at the same time, many of the messages will be forced into storage prior to delivery and there may be significant delays in delivering the messages to some subscribers. In some instances the message may be delivered long after the hazard warning has expired. This limitation makes individualized hazard warning messages impractical for messaging systems.

Finally, most messaging systems process calls on a first in-first out basis and do not distinguish between high priority messages and low priority messages. Accordingly, in order to deliver hazard messages effectively – which should have the highest priority – existing systems would need to be redesigned and operated to include a priority messaging scheme. And, to the extent that any of the messaging company’s customers are emergency service providers themselves, these customers would also need to be accorded high priority status – which will complicate the effort to prioritize messages.

Messaging systems use a series of distributed terrestrial transmitters over a large geographic area. In many instances, these transmitters are hooked directly into the public electricity grid without back-up power. Accordingly, since many hazard warning conditions affect local electricity, these transmitters may in fact be off the air at the very time that hazard warnings need to be delivered. These systems also use satellite systems that are subject to atmospheric conditions, such as rain fade and sun spots. Accordingly, the transmitter best suited to deliver the hazard warning may be in the area affected by the hazard and other transmitters may be too far away to provide adequate signal strength to the user. For example, if a tornado warning needs to be delivered, the transmitter itself may be within the path of the tornado which may limit the effectiveness of the system to deliver the hazard warning.

One-way paging systems do not generally know the location of the subscriber. When a message is sent to a paging subscriber, the message is sent over all transmitters serving the coverage area selected by the user irrespective of the actual location of the subscriber and each coverage area would be batched and sent separately. For example, a nationwide subscriber will have all of his or her messages transmitted over all transmitters nationwide regardless of where they are located. Because the system does not know the location of the subscriber, users select a coverage option which corresponds to the largest geographic area (and hence the maximum number of transmitters) that they may need to receive messages.

The one-way nature of the paging system means that any local hazard warning would be transmitted to all users over the variant coverage areas selected by all users. Accordingly, even if only one subscriber had selected nationwide coverage, all hazard warnings which might affect that user would need to be transmitted nationwide. If a hazard condition affected multiple coverage areas differently (e.g., tornado warning in one and a severe storm warning in the other) the system would quickly become congested sending out different messages in each coverage area. For example, a single warning in two different coverage areas sent via a group call might create ten separate messages alone (e.g., the local message is transmitted one for each coverage zone (local, regional and nationwide) and then sent again in the regional and nationwide coverage areas of the other coverage area). Accordingly, one-way messaging systems would not be useful for local hazard warnings.

As discussed above, wireless messaging systems are not optimal for the delivery of hazard warnings and accordingly should not be used as one of the primary means to deliver hazard warnings to the public. If wireless messaging systems are nonetheless to be used as a supplemental means to deliver hazard warnings, several significant governmental acts must be undertaken to protect the integrity of the systems and the operators.

First, participation in any hazard warning system should be entirely voluntary just like the Emergency Alert System currently administered by the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission"). For example, under Section 11.11(e) of the Commission’s Rules, paging carriers may already voluntarily participate in the Emergency Alert System. Voluntary participation will allow wireless carriers to determine whether their current system architecture, coverage, and network congestion will allow emergency traffic to be broadcast in a timely fashion. Voluntary participation could be encouraged by participants receiving either assistance in the form of equipment to upgrade their existing systems to better provide hazard warnings (such as generators and payment for lost revenue) and/or favorable treatment in the renewal process for their licenses.

Second, any mandated hazard warnings should be limited to messages provided in a group call format for the entire market area. This will help manage the capacity required for such messages and improve the prospects of timely delivery to all users. Additionally, any required notifications should be confined to systems with a relatively small coverage area (e.g. an area equivalent to a county) so that the information transmitted will be relevant to the recipient whose location is within known parameters.

Third, VZWMS suggests that to limit the current impact of individualized push information hazard warnings, NTIA should mandate that all hazard messages sent via e-mail – regardless of source –have a unique identifier in the subject line (e.g., "HWM:") of the message to ensure that carriers can create dynamic group calls (e.g., calls created by the system when the same message is delivered to several users) and users will know to review those messages. Push information services should also be required to create messages designed to maximize the number of messages which are the same so as to permit dynamic group calls to be created.

Fourth, the carrier must be protected from liability associated with failure to deliver hazard warnings. As mentioned above, there are significant limitations on messaging systems and the delivery of hazard warnings is far from assured. Accordingly, carriers must be protected from any liability flowing from failure of the user to receive a hazard warning regardless of why the warning was not received.

Finally, if participation by wireless carriers in the notification system is other than voluntary, the Administration should create a mechanism for carriers who participate to be reimbursed for any costs incurred. This will be facilitated by, Section 11.42 of the Commission's Rules which provides for the delivery of information to the Commission, that will allow payment for the airtime used to transmit emergency messages. Otherwise, issues may arise concerning a possible taking of property without compensation.

The foregoing being duly considered, VZWMS respectfully requests that messaging systems, such as those operated by VZWMS, not be used as a primary means of transmitting hazard warnings to the public.

Very truly yours,

Carl W. Northrop
of PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, LLP

Mark A. Stachiw
V.P. – General Counsel
Verizon Wireless Messaging Services, LLC
12221 Merit Drive, Suite 800
Dallas, TX 75251