A Privacy TreatiseWritten by Kathleen Pierz
A Privacy Treatise The message is out - consumers have clear and growing expectations when it comes to privacy they expect and ultimately demand for their personal contact information. Telecommunications organizations that ignore this need for privacy do so at their own peril. Those who listen and meet, or better yet, exceed consumers’ expectations, will ultimately win in marketplace. Privacy is what your customer says it is – independent of regulation, laws and contract language.
Based on recent market occurrences, changes in regulation, carrier pronouncements and results from several national consumer-level surveys, trend is clear: privacy matters!
Unmistakable messages from marketplace:
In Zelos Group’s National Wireless Usage Study, only 2 percent of US consumers indicated that they would list their wireless telephone number without any type of privacy and/or call screening in place. In this same study, 51 percent of that same sample and 69 percent of 13 to 24 year olds within study are willing list their mobile number IF they had guaranteed privacy protection and/or defined call screening procedures 41% of US consumers subscriber to a caller ID service; 57% of 18-24 year-olds subscriber to a caller ID service. Over 20 percent of all fixed line phone numbers and 98% of wireless numbers are unlisted in US. This number exceeds 40 percent for Arizona and Alaska and approaches 50 percent in large cities. Over 51 Million numbers in US were registered on national Do-Not-Call registry. This is over 50 percent of residential phone numbers, all prior to lists’ October 2, 2003 implementation. The US market has never seen a more clear indication that consumers are feed up with unwelcome commercial contacts. 88 percent of wireless subscribers said that their number one reason for not lisingt their mobile number would be to avoid telemarketing calls.
The Current Model is Broken The current model for being “listed / not listed” is no longer viable for today’s consumers in today’s technologically dynamic environment. The number of ways we can be contacted is growing: (listing all your personal and professional phones, emails, IM addresses, SMS, Push to Talk (PTT) physical addresses, etc, this list exceeds 15 to 20 for most of us) our technological capabilities seems to have at least temporarily exceeded regulatory, not to mention social and ethical, development in area of communications. It is now possible for almost anyone to locate and communicate with most of us anytime, anywhere. In US market, combination of relentless tele-marketing campaigns and poor personal manners has nearly converted this communications convenience into a bane within modern society.
Consumer backlash to this growing erosion of personal privacy is becoming increasingly apparent. Marketers, telcos and database aggregators have not, to date, met consumer privacy needs or expectations. Newly introduced and highly restrictive regulation in EU, inability to successfully introduce wireless numbers to a directory database (anywhere they had not been part of a database from introduction of mobile phones) and growing public ire are fruits of this collective inability to address consumer expectations.
Industrial ppm CO measurementsWritten by Scott Cowe of Dover Gas Technologies
It is a well known and heavily publicized fact that carbon monoxide is a dangerous gas even at low exposure levels. While measurement solutions for residential applications are fairly simple, industrial and commercial applications require a much more sophisticated instrument. Problems with accuracy of many measurement devices arise due to zero instability and cross sensitivity to other gasses on sensors especially in industrial situations where temperature changes and presence of other process gasses are an ongoing part of everyday life. Upper exposure limits for CO in work place are normally set to provide alarms or warnings at 25-50ppm, sensor inaccuracies often cause alarms to be triggered when in fact no actual carbon monoxide danger exists.
When higher levels of CO are present, proper safety procedure calls for halt of production and evacuation of all personnel from area until levels can be verified, reduced and source identified. These precautions taken against this potentially deadly gas show responsibility on part of employer and can save lives of many who work to make company profitable. The resulting down time can however have many detrimental effects including, employee stress, safety concerns from outside agencies, and reduced production, it is therefore vitally important that we ensure that CO alarms are set off only by actual increased levels of carbon monoxide. In an effort to reach this goal there are a number of considerations to be looked at, following information is provided for that purpose.
The most common types of detectors used for Carbon Monoxide measurements are,
1) NDIR or infra-red which although is very specific to gas being measured requires a warm-up time, is fairly large, can consume larger amounts of power making it unsuitable for small or portable instruments, and is more expensive. For ranges of CO measurement in industrial uses other than Low ppm this technology is by far number one choice.
2) Solid State, while this technology is small and cost effective it is not selective enough for CO only measurements and usually has higher temperature drift making zero unstable.
3) and Electrochemical which is primary choice for majority of Carbon Monoxide analyzers on market today due to it’s many benefits which include, size, weight, power, cost, and proven performance.
The remainder of this article will deal only with electrochemical sensor.
There are a number of electrochemical sensor manufacturers worldwide and each of these has a number of sensors designed for carbon monoxide measurements in different applications, choosing right one is key to success. The output from most of these sensors is very low, (pico amps per parts per million) so even subtle changes or correction procedures must be dealt with using extreme care in order to preserve integrity of signal. Sensors designed for higher concentrations of CO have a lower output per ppm which can cause it to have a