Subject: FW: [NEXTEL-1] BIZCOM website - warning, LONG response

From: "Todd Ellis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 13:30:17 -0500

I KNEW somebody was going to drag me into this...I was trying to let Jack
grab some limelight for a while and maybe make some commission money.

There are some inherent benefits and disadvantages of using ACSB, regardless
of band.  However, since this issue right now seems to be hovering over 220
concerning licenses, I'll continue on that tack.

One manufacturer is making ACSB equipment on 220, and that being Bizcom.
Bizcom has product on the shelf, ready to go, no waiting.  The equipment is
reliable, proven, and relatively cheap from a subscriber standpoint.

Now...ACSB is relatively low power.  The repeaters are typically 67 Watts
PEP.  To covert that to something comparable on FM, divide that power by a
factor 2.47.  That gives us about 27 Watts to compare with a similarly
equipped FM station running anywheres from 50-110 Watts.

There are two types of 220 licenses - ones that are 150 KHz TX-TX separated,
and those that are 5 KHz separated.  The 150 KHz ones use cavity combiners
that are generally less lossy than the other, which requires hybrid combiner
designs.  The difference on a 5-channel system is about ~4 dB.  The hybrid
will cost you 10 dB in total inline loss for a typical two antenna
configuration.

The 150 KHz licenses are generally not moveable geographically, while the 5
KHz licenses are generally market-based or nationwide licenses.  Being able
to move them and do your own coordination for wide area deployment make the
5 KHz channels much more attractive to license holders.  The 150 KHz ones
were last available in 1996 I believe, so there isn't any new deployment
unless you buy somebody's license and use the site (or one within the 28 dB
contour of the original site used for the license application).

Anyhow, with a 67 Watt PEP signal and 10 dB of combiner loss, you get about
7 Watts leaving the shelter.  Add 1 dB of loss and 6 dB of gain for a
DB224-JJ antenna, and you have 21 Watts PEP ERP.  That gives you about 8.5
Watts of "comparable" power.

We have run roughly 2,700 propagation prediction models over the last four
years demonstrating how such systems should operate.  We have had extremely
amazing results, and in some cases having accuracy resolutions of 1/4 mile
for a 40-mile test radius.  No, the signal didn't go that far, but the test
grid did.  We have been able to debunk others (NOT Jack, let's stay in his
good graces for now, LOL) who thought two sites would cover areas that we
proved that FIVE were needed.  This happened when they thought their systems
must be misaligned or improperly installed, and found that yes, the damn
things were shoehorned in, but working perfectly well.  The customer's
expectations were not set properly - ACSB systems running power levels like
this do not provide wide coverage.  In the case of running subscriber-based
systems and wanting as many subs as possible, that's perfectly OK.  If you
are a utility and are looking to replace an FM system, you need to have
different expectations of performance.

On another case - one client was looking to put in 49 sites to cover a
territory that we can fulfill with only 18 sites - and that's after moving
up to 450!  This reduces the overall capital cost of infrastructure by over
50%.  That's roughly $3 million under budget by not using ACSB products.

Another point - single source issues.  Yes, Mother Motorola is one too, but
I think Motorola will be around a lot longer.  Yes, Bizcom is run a lot
differently than it was under Datamarine, but they aren't diversified like
Motorola.  I've worked for some of the more recognizable names in the radio
industry, and out of all of my past employers, only one is still around.
After watching Securicor's products go by the way of the Dodo bird, my
clients are more than hesitant to get back into that game.

Back to license value.  150 KHz licenses, although less lossy, can't be
moved much.  Also, if they are in urban high sites, they can be nailed by
800 MHz intermod like no tomorrow due to the 1 MHz offset the bandplan calls
for.  We have a client that bought an existing dark system in a major
downtown urban rooftop that had to abandon the site due to unusability
issues.  Yet these same sites could be used for half-duplex data
applications using MDS or Tantalus or Sofia data radios for a variety of
applications.  So yes, they are useable, but by few.  We have helped in
transactions where 5 channel licenses were sold for $5K, even on perfect
high sites in urban downtown settings.  Depending on your viewpoint, they
can be quite attractive to purchase or dogs to sell.  One client had been
"sold" in a situation (like other similar investors in the early 90s, try
searching Yahoo with these words: 220, court, invest, SMR, holdings) where a
firm offered to sell shares in a single site to 40 investors - real estate
investors.  They paid over $1 million for a 10-channel license and site in a
midwest big city high site location.  After asking me what to do with such a
loss and the fact it could not be used, I appraised the site at $100,000
including the existing on-site equipment, mobile inventory, the site lease,
and the license itself.  It was sold to one of the investors in the group
for $50,000, and the rest took it as a huge loss - and investment mistake.
We made zero bucks.  The original sellers are still in the industry, and
yes, that was then and this is now.  Just avoid the mistakes others have
made, or "history is doomed to repeat itself".  Gee, I think I have said
that before once or twice...

The 5 KHz channels are more attractive.  Those are the same kind of licenses
that Access Spectrum bought from Aerwav last year.  When combined with a
picket fence of 150 KHz licenses, contiguous spectrum can be put together,
and specifically for FM operations.  Yet channel losses are very high.  One
national licensee, holding 22 narrow semi-contiguous channels (in blocks),
can use a whopping total of SIX when using FM at 12.5 KHz channel spacing.
Try trunking on more than two sites using ANY trunking format with only six
channels.  If you want to simulcast, that's your only winning bet, unless
you just like to argue and tinker with radios all day (I may resemble that
comment).  You might have to buy or lease more channels.

So yes, ACSB is a viable technology.  Just make sure Jack or somebody like
he or me can steer you into the right applications, the right site designs
(use that engineer!), and the right performance expectations.

And come to my IWCE discussion about 220 and utilities, etc.  Tickets are
still available!

Todd Ellis
Operations Manager, Telecommunications Division
Booth & Associates, Inc., a Utility Services Associates company
An Employee-Owned Business
1011 Schaub Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606
Phone: (919) 851-8770, ext. 109  Fax:  (919) 859-5918
Cellular:  (919) 418-3358  Alpha Pager:  (877) 205-9320
E-mail:  [email-masked]
Two-way SMS: [email-masked]
Web:  www.booth-assoc.com
Telecommunications, Transmission & Distribution, System Planning and Special
Projects,
Mapping and Field Services, Substations & Relaying, Strategic & Financial
Services

  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 9:56 PM
  To: [email-masked]
  Subject: Re: [NEXTEL-1] BIZCOM website

  In a message dated 1/18/2003 7:08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email-masked] writes:

    Unfortunately get-rich=quick speculators have held a lot of the 220
spectrum captive ever since it was assigned.

  Yeah, but a number of those folks are now looking for whatever way they
can to unload those same channels at fairly reasonable prices......... you
agree with me, Todd?

  Alan T.

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 13:42:20 -0500

What is the typical noise floor at the repeaters RX and what is it at mobile?

Todd Ellis wrote:

>  We have run roughly 2,700 propagation prediction models over the last four years
> demonstrating how such systems should operate.  We have had extremely amazing results,
> and in some cases having accuracy resolutions of 1/4 mile for a 40-mile test radius.
> No, the signal didn't go that far, but the test grid did.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---

From: "Todd Ellis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 13:50:10 -0500

Surprisingly low.  There's little significant operation on any freq (unless
you are military) within 50 MHz.  That's one of the reasons the utilities
wanted the band.  Low noise, low adjacent channel/on channel interference,
etc.  It's just the intermod and image products that eat you up especially
on heavily used rooftops with little horizontal separation.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Marcel [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 1:42 PM
  To: [email-masked]
  Subject: Re: FW: [NEXTEL-1] BIZCOM website - warning, LONG response

  What is the typical noise floor at the repeaters RX and what is it at
mobile?

  > No, the signal didn't go that far, but the test grid did.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:01:29 -0500

That is what I thought.  That issue alone would sell me on 220mhz. No garbage to cut
through!

Todd Ellis wrote:

>  Surprisingly low.  There's little significant operation on any freq (unless you are
> military) within 50 MHz.  That's one of the reasons the utilities wanted the band.  Low
> noise, low adjacent channel/on channel interference, etc.  It's just the intermod and
> image products that eat you up especially on heavily used rooftops with little
> horizontal separation.