Telecom
Rugged Computers are More than Just ‘Hard Shells’
First of all, let us distinguish between a “rugged” computer and a “ruggedized” computer (or tablet or smartphone).
A rugged computer is designed to operate reliably in very harsh environments and conditions. The term “ruggedized” gives the sense that fragile internal components have been somehow protected. Truly rugged devices are not simply wrapped in a tough shell.
Tough and durable mobile computers and smartphones are gaining in popularity – because the customers demand more durable products! – and there are actually some mainstream devices that could be described as ruggedized (and are often advertised as rugged). But they are not truly rugged.
They might be waterproof but lack other aspects of ruggedness, like the ability to withstand vibrations/shocks and function well in extreme temperatures.
Let us briefly recap the definition of ruggedness:
The devices should have passed some of the MIL-STD tests, i. e. the American military standard for equipment.
24 laboratory test methods ensure that the equipment can handle low pressure at high altitudes; exposure to high and low temperatures plus temperature shocks; rain; humidity; sand and dust exposure; leakage; shock and vibration.
• They must be highly rated on the ingress protection (IP) scale for protection against dust and liquids. The ratings are displayed as a 2 digit number.
The first digit reflects the level of protection against dust and the second digit reflects the level of protection against liquids (water). So an IP65 rating, for example, would ensure complete protection against dust and protection against water jets.
Now let us take a closer look on the tests carried out on rugged computers:
Drop and shock testing. This is one of the most important tests for rugged computers, simply because rugged computers are dropped all the time by workers in the logistics, forestry, public transportation, construction, mining, security and other industries where rugged computers are in high demand.
Drop a normal computer and you will easily break the display or the hard drive. Drop a rugged computer and nothing will happen – at least it is highly unlikely that the device will break if it has passed all the relevant tests.
All rugged mobile computers are tested to ensure they can survive falls as well as high-force impacts to the devices’ casings. Drop tests are certified by independent test laboratories and performed in accordance with MIL-STD-810G.
There are eight different procedures to choose from that each use different ways to cause shock or impact.
The “transit drop test” is the most cited. It requires items to survive a total of 26 drops from the height of 122 cm, on each face, edge and corner, onto a hard surface like concrete.
Liquid resistance testing. Mobile field computers are inevitably exposed to rain, spills and splashes. The second number of the IP code describes the liquid ingress protection, i.e. how well the unit is protected against water.
The scale ranges from dripping water to continuous immersion in water. Water resistance tests are often carried out by the manufacturers of rugged computers by exposing the computer to powerful water jets from many directions without harmful effects.
The test duration, water volume and water pressure varies depending on the rating. The water temperature is lower than the device.
Vibration testing. Ordinary mobile computers are sensitive to vibrations and are not built to handle vibrations. Hard drives disks are especially vulnerable when subjected to vibration. Rugged computers, however, must be able to handle vibrations since they are often used in vehicles that travel on bumpy and rough surfaces.
Vibration tests are performed in accordance with MIL-STD-810G. They are designed to determine if a device can withstand the vibrations it would be exposed to during its lifecycle.
The tests use laboratory shakers set to different levels to simulate being on a vehicle or carried by a person, with variations in the vibrations’ wave form, frequency and intensity depending on the type of device and the environment being simulated.
Sand and dust testing. A rugged computer must be able to keep out particles. Almost all field workers are exposed to dust and dirt at some point that would slow key functions and damage components if not protected.
The dust resistance procedure tests ingress of small dust particles. Flour and sand is projected onto the device at high wind speeds and high temperatures for several hours, rotating the device and varying the temperature and wind speed.
The blowing sand resistance procedure is basically the same as the dust test but the test is done in higher wind speed. The high end test simulates being near an aircraft.
Extreme temperature testing. Rugged mobile computers must be able to handle extreme temperatures and wild temperature swings.
For example, Handheld’s recently launched Nautiz X1 smartphone is designed to function well in temperatures ranging from -20°C to 60°C (-4°F to 140°F).
High temperature and low temperature tests are conducted in accordance with MIL-STD-810G. When testing for operability during high temperatures, the devices exposed to high temperatures while it is turned off (storage), while being turned on used (operation), and how it works under operational temperatures after having been exposed to higher storage temperatures (tactical-standby to operational).
When testing for operability during low temperatures, again three procedures are carried out to determine how the device will behave in low temperatures. They are much the same as in the high temperatures tests, except being done in freezing conditions.
Humidity testing. In addition to liquid resistance testing for IP rating, many manufacturers of rugged mobile computers test their devices in highly humid conditions as a separate test that is defined by the MIL-STD-810G standard.
The computers are exposed to humidity well over 90 per cent for several days in tropical heat. Many of the same features that make mobile computers liquid resistant also help prevent damage from high humidity.
These are the most important tests. The next question is: how do manufacturers of rugged mobile computers actually make their devices touch enough to pass these tests?
§ As opposed to normal computers, most rugged computers have no moving parts inside, like fans or rotating hard drives. Instead of rotating hard drives, rugged computers have solid-state drives – drives without moving mechanical components that are more resistant to physical shock.
§ There are stiffeners inside a rugged computer, often made out of aluminium, to prevent inside components and boards from flexing during an impact. The outer shell (case) and bumpers are designed to absorb the energy from a drop to prevent internal damage.
§ The touchscreen of a normal smartphone or computer is basically glass (with some coating to make them sensitive to touch), whereas the displays of rugged computers use chemically strengthened glass to prevent against scratches and cracks. The displays can also be positioned lower than then surrounding case to decrease their vulnerability.
§ Display backlight is used to improve outdoor readability, even in direct sunlight.
§ Some rugged computers are fitted with internal heaters in order to operate successfully in very cold environments. The heater warms components to an acceptable operating level and eliminates condensation arising from temperature swings.
In short, every simple detail and small part is researched, developed and chosen to make the computer as rugged as possible.
So where does all this leave us? Well, it is important to know the ingress protection scale – the higher the numbers, the tougher the device, basically.
‘
‘ It is also instrumental to check that the unit has undergone MIL-STD tests – many devices boast good IP numbers but fail to inform customers that they have not gone through any MIL-STD tests (which basically makes them normal fragile computers that are somewhat dust and water resistant).
With a deeper understanding of the standards and the tests, it will be easier to choose the mobile rugged device that suits your unique needs.
And if you want a rugged computer – then do not buy a ruggedized computer. Rugged computers are built—inside and out—to be rugged. No fragile parts wrapped in a hard shell here.
Jerker Hellström, CEO, Handheld Group
Jerker Hellström is a pioneer and industry veteran in the mobile rugged computer industry. In both entrepreneurial and managerial positions, he has 25 years of experience from developing, designing, manufacturing and marketing rugged computers globally. See www.handheldgroup.com.
Telecommunications operators have called on the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) to establish a clear regulatory framework for airtime and data credit services, warning that millions of Nigerians could face fresh disruptions if the agencies fail to coordinate their responsibilities.
Gbenga Adebayo, chairman, ALTON
This is coming on the heels of the Federal High Court judgment affirming the FCCPC’s authority to regulate consumer protection in the airtime and data credit market while preserving the NCC’s exclusive mandate over telecommunications licensing and technical regulation.
The ruling effectively clarified that both regulators have complementary roles rather than overlapping powers.
Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON), said the judgment should serve as the basis for stronger collaboration between the two regulators to avoid the regulatory uncertainty that earlier forced operators to suspend airtime and data credit services.
Gbenga Adebayo, chairman, ALTON, said the industry was not disputing the authority of either regulator but was seeking a clearly defined operational framework before any further regulatory actions are taken.
“The court has done something important. It has confirmed the FCCPC’s authority and, in the same breath, affirmed that the NCC’s role is preserved. Concurrency means coexistence. The industry now expects both regulators to establish the coordination framework that the court’s reasoning requires,” Adebayo said.
He stressed that regulatory certainty had become critical because millions of Nigerians depend on airtime and data credit services for daily communication.
“Forty million Nigerians depend on these services. The court has made clear that both regulators have a role. The industry is asking them to define how that works before any action that could disrupt access again,” he stated.
Adebayo also urged both agencies to engage industry stakeholders before introducing measures capable of affecting consumer access to the services.
According to him, the Presidential Enabling Business Environment Council (PEBEC) directive requiring Regulatory Impact Assessments before major policy changes should be observed to minimise unintended consequences on businesses and consumers.
The renewed call comes months after major mobile network operators temporarily suspended airtime and data borrowing services following the implementation of the FCCPC’s Digital, Electronic, Online and Non-Traditional Consumer Lending (DEON) Regulations, a development that affected millions of subscribers nationwide.
In its judgment, the Federal High Court held that while the FCCPC has powers over competition and consumer protection issues in the digital lending ecosystem, it cannot assume the NCC’s statutory responsibility for licensing telecommunications operators.
Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa ruled that the two agencies must operate within their respective mandates, describing their relationship as one of “coexistence, not displacement.”
MTN Nigeria has warned customers to disregard fraudulent online posts claiming the telecom operator is offering “1 Month Free Data for Old Subscribers,” describing the promotion as fake and unauthorised.
In a statement shared on its X handle, the telco said the circulating promotion is not from MTN and is not affiliated with the company.
MTN urged customers not to click on the accompanying link in the online post or provide their phone numbers or personal information on any third-party website.
Customers are advised not to click on the link or provide their phone numbers or personal information on any third-party website.
“We will never require customers to submit their details on external platforms to claim data or any other reward,” MTN said.
The company added that all genuine promotions, products and services are announced only through its official communication channels.
“All authentic MTN promotions, products and services are communicated exclusively through our official channels, including www.mtn.ng, our verified social media pages and *180#,” the company said.
MTN also urged customers to remain vigilant against online scams designed to steal personal information, warning that fraudulent offers often impersonate trusted brands to deceive unsuspecting users.
“Don’t be the next victim!” the company said, reiterating that the purported “1 Month Free Data for Old Subscribers” offer is fake and not associated with MTN Nigeria.
National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, has dismissed a Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by Pan African Towers Ltd. (PAT) in an employment dispute instituted by its former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Azeez Amida.
The court also awarded ₦500,000 in costs against the company after holding that the application lacked merit.
Justice Essien, who delivered the ruling on July 21 in Suit No. NICN/LA/143/2025: Mr. Azeez Amida v. Pan African Towers Limited, held that the substantive case concerning Amida’s alleged outstanding contractual entitlements under a Mutual Separation Agreement should proceed to hearing.
The ruling effectively rejected the company’s attempt to terminate the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.
Jurisdictional Challenge Rejected
Pan African Towers had argued that the National Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter because the Mutual Separation Agreement executed between the parties required disputes to first pass through negotiation, mediation and arbitration before litigation could be initiated.
The company maintained that Mr. Amida failed to exhaust those contractual dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
However, Justice Essien rejected the argument after examining evidence presented by the claimant showing that several attempts had been made to activate the agreed dispute resolution process before legal proceedings commenced.
According to the court, documentary evidence showed that Mr. Amida, through his solicitors, issued correspondence and formal demand letters aimed at resolving the dispute amicably in line with the terms of the agreement.
The court found that rather than engaging with those efforts, Pan African Towers failed to meaningfully participate in the process and later sought to rely on the same contractual provisions to challenge the court’s jurisdiction.
Evidence Considered by the Court
According to evidence presented by Mr. Amida’s legal team, the court considered correspondence involving senior officials of Pan African Towers and its investors.
Among the documents relied upon was a letter allegedly written by the Chairman of the Board of Pan African Towers and Partner at Development Partners International (DPI), Mr. Adefolarin Ogunsanya, rejecting the demand made by Mr. Amida’s legal representatives for an amicable resolution before litigation.
The claimant’s legal team also tendered multiple email communications allegedly sent from January 2025 to Verod Capital Management’s in-house legal counsel, Mr. Dipo Okuribido.
According to the claimant, those emails did not receive any response before the commencement of the suit.
Based on the evidence before it, the court held that the conduct of Pan African Towers was inconsistent with reliance on the contractual dispute resolution provisions.
Justice Essien ruled that the company had effectively waived its right to insist on arbitration after frustrating the preliminary dispute resolution process contemplated by the parties’ agreement.
The court consequently held that Pan African Towers could not rely on the arbitration clause to prevent the court from hearing the substantive claims.
Court Awards Costs
Having dismissed the Preliminary Objection, the National Industrial Court awarded costs of ₦500,000 against Pan African Towers.
The court described the objection as lacking merit.
Substantive Defence Yet to Be Filed
The ruling represents the first judicial determination in the employment dispute.
The claimant’s legal team noted that since the suit commenced, the principal response filed by Pan African Towers had been the Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.
According to the claimant, the company has yet to file a substantive defence addressing the merits of the claims relating to the alleged outstanding contractual entitlements.
With the dismissal of the jurisdictional challenge, the matter will now proceed to hearing on its merits.
The court adjourned the substantive suit until Jan. 12, 2027.
Background to the Dispute
The dispute arose following Mr. Amida’s departure from Pan African Towers after both parties executed a Mutual Separation Agreement.
According to the claimant, while the agreement governed the terms of his exit from the company, certain contractual entitlements remained unpaid.
His legal representatives said they initially sought to resolve the dispute through the mechanisms provided under the agreement by engaging the company through correspondence and formal demand letters.
When those efforts failed to produce a resolution, they commenced proceedings before the National Industrial Court seeking payment of the outstanding contractual entitlements.
Rather than filing a substantive defence to the claims, Pan African Towers challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that arbitration and other dispute resolution mechanisms had not been exhausted.
The National Industrial Court has now rejected that position.
Related Commercial Litigation
The employment proceedings are separate from ongoing commercial cases before the Federal High Court involving Mr. Amida, Development Partners International (DPI), Verod Capital Management and other parties.
Those proceedings relate to issues concerning the ownership of Pan African Towers and remain pending before the courts.
The National Industrial Court noted that those matters would be determined independently based on their respective facts, evidence and applicable legal principles.
Legal Team Reacts
Reacting to the ruling, representatives of Mr. Amida’s legal team welcomed the decision.
“The Court has affirmed an important principle of contractual dispute resolution.
“A party cannot frustrate the agreed process and later seek to rely on that same process to prevent a claim from being heard.
“We now look forward to presenting the substantive case before the Court,” the legal team said.
The lawyers acknowledged that Pan African Towers retained the right under Nigerian law to pursue any available appellate remedies but stated that they were fully prepared for the substantive hearing scheduled for January 2027.
NDIC Begins Payment to Depositors of 46 Failed Microfinance Banks
Telcos Seek Clear Regulatory Framework on Airtime Credit Services
FG Says Rumours, Fear, Can Crash Banks
MTN Warns Customers against Fake Promo
EU Debunks Fake Compensation Scheme Targeting West African Bank Customers
NRC, Ponzi Scheme Collapses Resulting Loss of Billions of Naira
NASENI Moves to Digitize CCB’s 5m Assets Declaration and Operations
Lebara Nigeria Launches Lebara Play, Africa’s First Telecom-Owned Micro-Drama Platform
Tokenization, Blockchain Technology will Transform Financial Institutions – IMF
EFCC Busts NIS Visa Overstay Racket, Uncovers N700m in an Account
News3 days agoYEDC Warns Customers, Says 20 Percent Electricity Bonus is Scam
News3 days agoPFIPC Probe: Dollar, Pounds Accounts of Fake Agency Inactive – CBN
Broadcasting3 days agoNBC, INEC, Plan Joint Broadcast Monitoring Framework ahead of 2027 Elections
News3 days agoSTEM Africa Fest to Nurture Nigeria’s Future Innovators
E-Business3 days agoJumia Nigeria Expands Flexible Payment Options with Klump Partnership
E-Financial3 days agoNo Going Back on July 31 Deadline for Insurance Firms’ Recapitalisation – NAICOM
E-Business3 days agoLagos Unveils N10m Single-digit Loan Scheme for MSMEs
E-Financial3 days agoCourt Affirms FCCPC’s Power to Regulate Digital Lending