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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:36:29 EDT

Actually, that has been done in a number of cases (Mr. Maples, feel free to 
jump in).  Certainly, in the case of Anne Arundel County, for example, that 
did nothing to eliminate the interference from Cell A, which still persists.

Alan Tilles

In a message dated 4/28/2003 3:54:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> They have been told to:
> 
> 1) Decrease power
> 
> 2) Increase antenna height change
> 
> 3) Change antenna patterns
> 
> 4) Reduce down-tilt.
> 
> 5) Optimize
> 
> Do they do it ???
> 
> Nope-
>

---

From: "marcel_rf1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:57:12 -0000

JD Said:

 "Some will cite a specific site where filtering attempts were deemed 
inadequate, but keep in mind that is a very low percentage of the 
sites."

Dear Some,

Anne Arundel County seems to be the "It did not work example" how 
about Portland, NYC, Atlanta, Miami, Jacksonville, St. Louis, Fort 
Worth, Dallas, LA, Nashvile (the list goes on) where it did?

There must be something different about the Anne Arundel County
situation that differs from the others. What is it?
 
Since the situation has not been corrected why is Nextel Whining to 
the FCC about Anne Arundel County, Maryland's antenna siting & zoning 
count ordiance (that will help reduce interference)?

See:

Re: [NEXTEL-1] Nextel Whines to the FCC concerning Anne Arundel 
County, Maryland's antenna siting & zoning count ordiance.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/message/5909

That's like ask the Doctor if you can "Twist The Knife" sticking out 
of the patients back while they are on the operating table.

JD said it best-

"SERIOUSLY! There needs to be a moritorium on building new Nextel 
sites that further reduces public safety communicatins coverage."

--- In [email-masked], landmobilelawyer@a... wrote:
> Marcelrf@B... 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 12:32:55 -0700

Geeze.... another 'spin' job ?

"...in the case of Anne Arundel County, for example, that (filters,
etc.) did nothing to eliminate the interference from Cell A which still
persists."

Yep, that's an accurate statement when stated in exactly that manner,
but, as Paul Harvey says, here is the rest of the story..........

There were THREE cell sites involved at the location tested; Nextel,
Cellular A and Cellular B.

Cellular A and Cellular B >> COMBINED << degraded the sheriff's portable
radio reception approximately 9 dB. At this level, portables used in the
tests still operated with minimal problems.  The interference level WAS
reduced (but not "eliminated") on one of the non-Nextel sites using
transmit filters, lowering the ERP and removing the antenna downtilt. 

However, the Nextel site ALONE degraded the sheriff's portable radio
reception approximately 20 dB! At this level of interference, the
portable radios were useless, except for one specific model that
operated marginally with lots of noise in the background.

When the Nextel site was operating, turning Cellular A and B off and on
had no measurable or operational effect. The interference was so great
from Nextel, it didn't matter what the other sites were doing.

While it is correct that no amount of filtering will totally 'eliminate'
interference,
even a non-technical person can see that IF the Nextel site was NOT
putting out so much interference, the sheriff's radio system would work!

Cellular A and B would not have to do very little to satisfy the sheriff
if Nextel was out of the picture.

If there is anyone in possession of the test report, PLEASE post it for
all of us to see if you can and we'll decide on our own. All I have is a
synopsis from a trusted source that can't get involved because of who
they work for. I bet the complete report would be interesting.

But I may be wrong.........
Jack Daniel
================================
 
[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Actually, that has been done in a number of cases (Mr. Maples, feel
> free to jump in).  Certainly, in the case of Anne Arundel County, for
> example, that did nothing to eliminate the interference from Cell A,
> which still persists.
> 
> Alan Tilles
> 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading!
Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/AG3JAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:31:34 -0400

Like I said.........

marcel_rf1 wrote:

> situation that differs from the others.

--
    "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: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:42:05 -0400

Thanks Jack-

---

From: "Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:49:26 -0000

I can relate, had AT&T, Cingular, and NEXTEL together at the same 
site a few months back.  Our process of elimination and results were 
exactly what was described below.  

To fix the interference, NEXTEL re-aligned their frequencies and 
reduced their ERP.  Signal levels at 200' from the base of the site 
exceeded -35dBm in the normal configuration and was reduced to -50.  
This made the interference tolerable and my users are aware of the 
situation.

Mark

--- In [email-masked], Marcel <Marcelrf@B...> wrote:
> > landmobilelawyer@a... wrote:
> > >