Subject: Re: [NEXTEL-1] Re:800 MHz Consensus Plan "Scoreboard" as of 4/16/03]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:19:54 EDT

In a message dated 4/29/2003 11:30:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Nextel would blame others, including the victims, for the problem. They
> suggest equipment that existed before their abusive use of the spectrum
> should be altered or replaced so it will not be so suseptable to the
> types of interference occurring near Nextel sites. 

I have yet (emphasis on "yet") to see Nextel blame the victims.  Further, it 
is generally the cellular carriers that suggest that the victim's equipment 
be altered or replaced, through "improved filtering in public safety radios" 
(Verizon's Feb. 10, 2003 Comments at page 7) or the cellular industry's push 
to move all public safety to 700 MHz (complete replacement of all radios).  
Plus, Jack, note again that your (and others) "case-by-case" fix has been 
ineffective to solve the interference being caused by non-Nextel cellular 
systems, nor is that case-by-case resolution something that's acceptable to 
the public safety community, because it places emergency personnel in harm's 
way by "finding" a trouble spot at the wrong time (i.e. in the middle of an 
incident).  Having said that, case-by-case would certainly be better for my 
business, and probably your's, too! :)

Alan T.

---

From: "marcel_rf1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:41:57 -0000

The case-by-case solution would be less disruptive. Ask any Public 
safety administrator and they can tell you precisely where they 
experience Nextel interference, No Guessing, No Hesitation, No Doubt-

Where are the Motorola iDEN Engineers??????????

Timmy let them speak!

--- In [email-masked], landmobilelawyer@a... wrote:
> JackDaniel@R... writes:

------------------------ 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: Jack Daniel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:15:42 -0700

It's not a "case-by-case" approach when you recognize the Nextel problem
is systematic and proven technical solutions applied to ALL Nextel sites
could reduce the level of interference, do it faster and cost less to
others than the 'plan'.

I don't think accepting an unproven 42 month plan that nobody will
irrevocably commit to paying for is a better answer, and I bet there's a
lot of public safety people out there that would agree.

However the constant bombardment of the FCC after the closing of public
comments and high profile 'spin' puppet shows could be rapidly changing
the 'plan', making the understanding earlier supporters invalid or
incomplete now.

The fact that Nextel continues to add hundreds of more interfering cell
sites is compounding the problem and does not speak well of the
sincerity of Nextel's concern for first responders. 

But I may be wrong......
Jack Daniel
====================================

[email-masked] wrote:
> I have yet (emphasis on "yet") to see Nextel blame the victims.
> Further, it is generally the cellular carriers that suggest that the
> victim's equipment be altered or replaced, through "improved filtering
> in public safety radios" (Verizon's Feb. 10, 2003 Comments at page 7)
> or the cellular industry's push to move all public safety to 700 MHz
> (complete replacement of all radios).  Plus, Jack, note again that
> your (and others) "case-by-case" fix has been ineffective to solve the
> interference being caused by non-Nextel cellular systems, nor is that
> case-by-case resolution something that's acceptable to the public
> safety community, because it places emergency personnel in harm's way
> by "finding" a trouble spot at the wrong time (i.e. in the middle of
> an incident).  Having said that, case-by-case would certainly be
> better for my business, and probably your's, too! :)
> 
> Alan T.