Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Reasons I am against the plan

From: "Rik Rasmussen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:40:38 -0400

1. I believe the plan unfairly rewards Nextel with a valuable contiguous
spectrum.

2. I do not believe Nextel has had to competitively bid for this proposed
contiguous spectrum.

3. I believe that if this contiguous spectrum is to be assembled, it should
be auctioned and awarded as similar spectrum has been.

4. I believe 1 and 2 above give preferential treatment to Nextel compared to
other carriers. (If I were another carrier, I would sue the FCC over this
preferential treatment, if such a suit is possible.)

5. I am not convinced this realignment will solve the near-far overload
interference issue.

Speaking solely on my own behalf,

Rik Rasmussen
Two Way Radio Directory
http://twowayradiodirectory.com/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading!
Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pDi3hB/OC5FAA/AG3JAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:45:34 -0400

well said-

--
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

---

From: "Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:06:50 -0000

1. I don't remember the A and B cellular carriers having to bid for 
their spectrum and NEXTEL has been around longer when they were in 
their SMR configuration.  So here, what is the difference?  I don't 
think it's unfair being it's common knowledge that NEXTEL will have a 
reduced number of channels than they have right now in the interlaced 
configuration.

2. I think if you added up all the coordination costs and FCC charges 
that NEXTEL has paid since day one and is still paying for the 
channels they currently have it would more than exceed what any of 
the PCS providers have payed in a lump sum to get 1.9 GHz. spectrum.

3. How can NEXTEL bid for the spectrum they currently occupy?  Does 
this mean they have to cease operation so they can take the chance 
that they will be the high bidder?  If given the choice to do this or 
do nothing and if I was NEXTEL then I would do nothing and fix the 
problems on a site by site basis.  It would be cheaper in the long 
run but wouldn't be looked upon favorably by Public Safety who have 
to deal with the constant interference.

4.  If re-alignment doesn't fix the near-far overload then truly 
NEXTEL is operating outside the limits set forth by the FCC and they 
will be in violation of their transmission mask and then would be 
required to take additional steps above and beyond the 850 million to 
bring themselves into compliance.  This is totally their gamble.

As you can see I'm in favor of the plan because of the increased 
spectrum promised to Public Safety and the continuous spectrum that 
we will have as we will be adjacent to 700 MHz when its all 
finished.  As I have never heard of a NPSPAC only system, the re-
tuning of a NPSPAC system to 806 is a no-brainer.  If the radio and 
infrastructure does 821 NPSPAC 12.5 KHz then it will do the 806-25 
KHz channels.  If the salesman tells you otherwise he is full of it.

Mark

--- In [email-masked], "Rik Rasmussen" <hrasmussen@n...> 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z_CBYA/vB5FAA/AG3JAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->