Communications Technology Group (CTG) Status Report to the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee March 12, 2007 Brian K. Daly, CTG Leader

CTG Mission  The primary mission of the Communications Technology Group (CTG) is to develop and submit recommendations for relevant technical standards for devices and equipment and technologies used by electing commercial mobile service (CMS) providers to transmit emergency alerts to subscribers (see WARN Act §603(c)(3)). Furthermore, per WARN Act §603(c)(6), the CTG will develop recommendations for a process under which CMS providers can elect to transmit emergency alerts if: A) not all of the devices or equipment used by such provider are capable of receiving such alerts or; B) the provider cannot offer such alerts throughout the entirety of its service area.  Furthermore, the CTG will support development of technical standards for priority transmission of alerts by electing CMS providers to subscribers (WARN Act 603(c)(2)).  Finally, the CTG will support the development of recommendations for the technical capability to transmit emergency alerts by electing CMS providers to subscribers in languages in addition to English, to the extent feasible and practicable. See WARN Act §603(c)(4)).

CTG Issues to Address  CTG will need to address issues such as: Recommendations for technologies and methods permitting the efficient transmission of messages to potentially the entire subscriber base they serve. Permit the distribution of alerts with the appropriate priorities as indicated by the AIG. Recommendations on methods permitting the targeting of alerts to specific geographic regions or locales, thereby enabling use of this important emergency service by other alerting authorities, including state and local governments. Recommendations on handset and device technologies appropriate for alerting services. The needs of non-English subscribers as well as people with special needs, including people with disabilities and the elderly. To ensure that this critical emergency service continues to evolve with technology supporting it, the CTG should also consider recommendations permitting the incorporation of planned service improvements, such as expected multimedia and broadband services, into their CMS alerting capability. The CTG will develop recommendations to facilitate eventual alignment of the Advisory Committee’s recommendations with relevant standards organizations focused on the development of mobile communication standards to support its continued evolution and adaptation.

CTG Participants  Substantial work effort with participation from: Cingular (Group Leader) Sprint-Nextel (Deputy Group Leader) Alltel American Association of Paging Carriers Rural Cellular Association T-Mobile Verizon Wireless Ericsson Motorola Nokia Nortel Qualcomm Telecommunications Industry Association

CTG Status Summary  Developed working procedures and assumptions for the informal working group.  Held monthly multi-day face-to-face meetings with interim conference calls. As of 2/15/2007, held 3 face-to-face meetings and 2 conference calls.  Formed Ad-hoc Groups to investigate specific issues. E.g. Battery Life, Security, Device  Coordinating with the other informal working groups. Liaisons being sent to other informal working groups.  On track for making recommendations to the Project Management Group per the project schedule and assignment of responsibilities.

CTG Status Service Profiles  The CTG is in the process of defining service profiles. Service Profiles define the underlying delivery attributes.  Include text, audio, video, and multimedia The goal is to define service profiles and not specific delivery technologies.  Multiple technologies are available for each service profile.  The operator has options to use any available technology that supports a given profile if they elect to transmit alerts. Based on operator business needs and technology availability Text is viewed as the “universal service profile”.  Minimum capability that must be supported by an operator that elects to transmit alerts. Across delivery technologies Across mobile devices  Additional profiles can be supported as technology advances and operators commercially deploy those technologies.

CTG Status Deployment Scenarios  WARN Act  an operator may choose to elect to transmit alerts “ in whole or in part ”. Not necessarily a simple “ yes ” or “ no ”.  CTG has identified deployment scenarios based upon: multiple technologies. mobile device capabilities. product availability. implementation phases. wireless operator election to support wireless alerts. other.  Scenarios will be used to develop a process under which CMS providers can elect to transmit emergency alerts for each scenario.

CTG Working Assumptions Efficient Transmission of Messages  During emergencies, support for NS/EP users and calls is important. Need to minimize the potential for Wireless Alerts resulting in severe network congestion that inhibits critical communications. An alert to a wireless device encourages subscribers to immediately use that device.  CTG is working on the assumption that point-to-point or unicast delivery technologies (i.e. SMS point-to-point, MMS) are not feasible or practical for the support of wireless alerts. Especially on a nationwide or large city scale. Point-to-point will quickly congest a network, resulting in message delays or messages not delivered, as well as denying voice service.  Also assuming that distribution of the alerts to the wireless subscribers will be unidirectional from the wireless operator network to the mobile device of the subscriber. No acknowledgement or confirmation of receipt by the mobile device in order not to add to network congestion.

CTG Working Assumptions Handset & Device Technologies  CTG is assuming only alerts that are immediate, severe, or likely threat to life, health or property will be delivered to mobile devices.  Minimize the “cry wolf” syndrome.  Mobile devices have limited capabilities. Number of characters, screen size, etc.  A common experience across all carriers and technologies is desirable.  For example, a standardized alerting tone for the notification of an emergency alert message.  It is anticipated new mobile devices are required.  Replaced by normal subscriber device lifecycle.  Some devices, such as pagers, may support some of the service profiles with over-the-air or programming changes.

CTG Project Timelines & Milestones  Next Three Months Develop Use Cases Complete Service Profiles Address Multilanguage feasibility Start addressing geo-targeting Define architecture and interfaces Address special needs requirements Continue with ad-hoc activities Start gateway to wireless distribution interface definition Define recommendations for handset and device technologies Complete gateway to wireless interface definition  Summer 2007 Address UNG comments to handset and device technologies Define technology evolution path to multimedia and broadband First draft of CTG Recommendations Address alignment with standards Second draft of CTG Recommendations Final draft of CTG Recommendations sent to all Informal Working Groups for comment Address comments from all informal working groups Final CTG Recommendations to PMG