Wireless Phone Versus Onboard: Electronic Logs At A Crossroad
John Bendel
Technology Editor
Earlier this year, a company named Xora Inc. petitioned the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for an exemption from the agency's requirements for acceptable devices to keep automated driver logs. It wasn't the kind of event that makes the evening news.
But in the world of trucking technology, it seemed that Xora had bounced off the diving board, grabbed its knees cannonball-style and plummeted into the pool. The resulting splash attracted much attention to Xora – a relative newcomer in a limited field – and the ongoing debate over mandated electronic logs. (See Washington Report in this issue.)
Xora, of Mountain View, Calif., created DOT Logs to function over the Nextel wireless network with GPS-enabled phones. It seemed like a natural. After all, technology in general seems to be moving to the wireless phone. Wireless service providers are offering more bandwidth for less money. Handset makers are building in more memory and computing power. Cellphones are pushing handheld computers aside in many markets. In trucking, they're competing with the traditional onboard devices from technology providers like Qualcomm, PeopleNet, Tripmaster, Cadec, XATA and others.
But using a wireless phone for voice communication, basic computing, data transmission, even for bar code scanning and GPS positioning, is one thing. Maintaining automated driver logs is something else.
All the companies noted above offer automated log systems – some since automated log systems were authorized by the predecessor of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in the late 1980s. Their devices comply with the provision that requires a device be "integrally synchronized" with the truck. That is interpreted to mean a connection to the truck's engine computer. Cellphones offer no such connection.
So Xora and Nextel delivered a kind of one-two punch. When the FMCSA asked last year for public comment on a possible mandate of automated driver logs, Nextel filed a response asking that any mandate allow for cellphone-based systems. Then in May, Xora officially requested that the FMCSA specifically exempt its DOT Logs product from the regulation. Xora cited the exemption that already exists for the system developed and used by truckload carrier Werner Enterprises.
Werner had asked for an exemption because their system did not meet certain parts of the regulation. But Werner's Qualcomm-based system is "integrally synchronized" with the truck as required by 395.15. Xora was asking the agency to take another step.
Showdown at the FMCSA Corral
The Nextel-Xora system requires a GPS-equipped handset with enough computing power to run the DOT Logs application, which resembles Werner's system at least in part. Like the Werner system, DOT Logs uses GPS to record truck movement and help determine duty status. And like the Werner system, DOT Logs sends some information wirelessly to a central server. But DOT Logs retains some critical data in the handset itself. That allows the application to function even when out of transmission range, alerting the driver to potential violations, for example.
Xora claims that – like most handset-based applications – DOT Logs can deliver functionality in an inexpensive package. That claim is supported by comments submitted in favor of Xora's exemption request. In fact, it's currently the primary argument for phone-based technology.
On the other side, exemption opponents raise serious questions. Objectors say:
• A GPS cellphone-base system cannot provide the accuracy and credibility of onboard systems.
• A cellphone system could be abused by a driver who simply left his phone behind for a round-trip or "ghost" run; it could be simply turned off or discarded and reported stolen.
• The system could misreport off-duty trips, say by car to a motel.
• The cellphone and its software could be susceptible to hackers who might sell "cheats" to drivers.
• Safety officials unfamiliar with the system won't be able to interpret its information properly; the scope of training support offered falls short of what will actually be needed.
One comment questioned the constitutionality of demanding drivers to turn over cellphones to enforcement personnel. A competitor questioned Xora's cost claims, citing total cost of ownership – the price of operating the system over time.
The lines are clearly drawn, and not just between the pro and anti-Xora camps, but between providers of self-contained, installed, onboard devices and those who promote freestanding wireless devices.
Even if the FMCSA declines to grant Xora an exemption, the question will not be settled. It will only be a matter of time before Xora or another vendor comes to the FMCSA with a wireless device that addresses the concerns expressed in the Xora comments.
Constitutionality does not appear to be a serious problem either. The courts have never ruled against driver logs themselves, though they have been described over the years as a form of self incrimination.
The most important question over time may just be the one raised by that Xora competitor – long-term cost.
Meanwhile, Ananth Rami, Xora's vice president, products and services, says he expects an affirmative response from the FMCSA any time now.
"I expect we will get the exemption for a couple of reasons," Rami said. He cited the Werner exemption and the FMCSA's notice of proposed rulemaking that involved an automated log mandate.
"If they're thinking about mandating, they ought to be thinking about affordable devices," Rami said.
IT Solutions continued...
