Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: [220] Digest Number 285

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:49:15 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
From: "P Heyden" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [220] Digest Number 285
To: <[email-masked]>

I find it amusing that all of a sudden everyone has an opinion on what AMTS
is or should be, and what is or is not allowable for AMTS licensees. May I
remind all that opinions are like ---holes, everyone has one, but that does
not mean that one wants to look at them, or that they are particularly
relevant.  .Up until 1997 few people in the radio community would have known
what AMTS stood for or that it even existed.

I find it amazing that the land mobile community is still looking to the FCC
to do their thinking for them.  It reminds me of a story that my attorney
told me.  He was speaking to a friend who was out of work and noted from his
resume the many different previous job entries.  When queried as to the
reason for this, the man answered, "Well, I really have never had a job that
I did not create myself".  It turns out that this man's success was
predicated on finding an opportunity and then seizing upon it, and creating
his own employment.  Perhaps there is a lesson here.

AMTS system development and administration is no longer my primaray focus.
Sure, I follow AMTS developments as a shareholder of Mobex, as this is in my
interest  The future of AMTS is in the good hands of both the FCC and the
current licensees.  I am sure that their collective focus is to provide for
better and more varied telecommunications services to the maritime community
specifically, and the  overall public more generally.  Who knows, just as
AMTS turned out to be an opportunity in the past for those of us that
recognized it then, perhaps there will be future opportunities in AMTS for
others willing to step up and take a risk. Manufacturers like Motorola,
Tait, Simoco and others have already recognized this vision.  AMTS is a
continuing story and I am sure that there is ample opportunity for more
people with vision to take part in its future development and direction.

For anyone interested in some of the history, ongoing proceedings, and
determinations of the FCC regarding AMTS, one couild start with a thorough
reading and understanding of Docket 92-257, which dates back prior to 1997.

On to another challenge  ! !

Kind regards,

Paul vander Heyden

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

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/AG3JAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:49:59 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
   From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [220] Digest Number 285
     To: [email-masked]

> reading and understanding of Docket 92-257, which dates back prior to 1997.

An excellent double-speak answer.  Been there, done that (with reference to the dockets,
and yes, I was involved in the beginning, prior to 1997).  The question still remains.....
How does an AMTS station legally provide land-based dispatch on a primary basis that isn't
ship-related.

Alan Tilles
                   Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

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