Subject: [NEXTEL-1] SOUTHERN LINC Ex Parte Submission 02-55

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 05:36:09 -0400

Ex parte presentation to WTB and OET

                                      SOUTHERN LINC
                                   Ex Parte Submission
                        _________________________________________
                 In the Matter of Improving Public Safety Communications
                                   in the 800 MHz Band
                                   WT Docket No. 02-55
                                      April 24, 2003

I. BACKGROUND OF SOUTHERN LINC

· Subsidiary of Southern Company.

· Digital 800 MHz SMR system utilizing Motorola's iDEN technology. Over 500
base stations.

· Over 250,000 subscribers, including 30,000 public safety users (3,000 state and
federal public safety entities). Other subscribers include governmental and
commercial entities.

· Mobile communications provider for Southern Company's utility operating
companies (Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, Mississippi Power,
and Savannah Electric and Power).

· 127,000 square mile service territory (Alabama, Georgia, portions of Florida
and Mississippi).

· Holds approximately 1,186 licenses. These licenses are in the interleaved (809-
816/854-861 MHz), General Category (806-809/851-854 MHz), and Upper 200
SMR (816-821/861-866 MHz) portions the of 800 MHz band.

· Spent approximately $52 million at auction on EA licenses.

II. NATURE OF INTERFERENCE PROBLEM

A. Reasons For Occurrence Of Public Safety Interference

· Differences Between Public Safety Systems And Low-Site CMRS
Systems. Public safety systems generally provide extensive coverage
with few transmitters; signal becomes weaker the farther away the user
from the base station. If user is far from base station but close to CMRS
station, weak public safety signals must compete with strong CMRS
signals.

· Lack Of Frequency Selectivity By Public Safety Receivers. Public
safety receivers generally designed to hear broadly across the 800 MHz
band, thus increasing vulnerability to interference.

. Specific Causes Of Public Safety Interference

· Intermodulation. Multiple frequencies mix to create new frequency
known as intermodulation product. If intermodulation product falls on
public safety signal, communications can be degraded. Problem with
public safety receivers is usually "in-receiver" intermodulation, in which
undesired frequencies within passband of receiver mix in the receiver to
create an intermodulation product.

· Receiver Overload. Receiver amplifies undesired signal within
receiver's passband. If the signal is already strong, amplification can
overload receiver.

· Transmitter Sideband Noise. If sideband energy is stronger than
public safety signal, it can overpower public safety signal.

III. THE REBANDING CONTEMPLATED IN CONSENSUS PLAN
WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATE PUBLIC SAFETY
INTERFERENCE

A. The Degree To Which Consensus Plan Rebanding Would
Decrease Third Order Intermodulation Interference Is Highly
Questionable

· Consensus Parties have failed to place in the record any evidence
backing up their claim that Consensus Plan rebanding would
significantly reduce third order intermodulation interference. Although
they submitted affidavits from a Nextel executive and referenced
"Nextel tests" and "mathematical showings," the affidavits do not
contain specific empirical evidence.

· Consensus Plan provides for only 1% of public safety receivers to be
replaced (and that is only because Consensus Parties estimate that 1% of
public safety radios are too old to be retuned to new frequencies, and
hence must be replaced). Thus, majority of public safety receivers will
remain subject to intermodulation and receiver overload interference.

Consensus Plan Rebanding Would Not Decrease Receiver
Overload Interference

· Receiver overload will not be mitigated because Nextel's operations and
a portion of cellular bands will still be within public safety receivers'
filter band pass.

Consensus Plan Rebanding Fails To Account For Fifth Order
Intermodulation Interference

· Nextel's mitigation percentages are apparently based solely on
intermodulation interference caused by third order intermodulation
products. However, Motorola stated in its Comments that fifth order
intermodulation is "the more common form of IM interference . . . in the
800 MHz band."

· Fifth order intermodulation products extend further into the band than
third order products. With Nextel at 861-869 MHz, fifth order products
would extend down the band to 845 MHz, which would encompass
relocated NPSPAC licensees at 851-854 MHz. Thus, Consensus Plan
would not protect licensees from fifth order products.

The Consensus Plan May Not Begin Mitigating Interference For
At Least Three Years

· The Consensus Parties concede that rebanding might take three years to
implement. (Consensus Plan at 25.) Thus, interference mitigation may
not begin for three years.

IV. PUBLIC SAFETY INTERFERENCE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED
THROUGH LOCAL SOLUTIONS

A. Rationales For Employing Local Solutions Instead Of
Nationwide Rebanding

· Local Solutions Will Immediately Begin Mitigating Interference.
Local solutions can be employed immediately; rebanding will take
years.

· Public Safety Interference Does Not Exist Everywhere. Relatively
few areas of country are experiencing interference. As such,
unnecessary and inequitable to implement nationwide rebanding.

· Responsibility Should Lie With Interference-Causer. Rebanding
punishes licensees that are not causing interference by forcing them to
relocate. Local solutions require only interference-causing licensees to
incur burden and expense of remediation.

· Nextel's $850 Million Could Remedy Many Individual Interference
Situations. For cost of rebanding, countless individual interference
situations could be corrected. Portland Experience. For example,
Nextel used local solutions to remediate extensive interfence that
it was causing in Portland, to the point that local officials no longer
view the interference as a significant problem. See attached article
from The Oregonian, April 19, 2003.

· The Efficiency Of Local Solutions Would Increase Over Time.
"Per-situation" cost of resolving interference incidents would decrease
as licensees became more experienced in interference mitigation.

· Local Solutions Will Be Required In Any Event. Consensus Parties
concede that local solutions will be necessary regardless of whether
rebanding is implemented. (Consensus Plan p. 23.) Why go through
disruption, burden, and expense of rebanding when local solutions will
still be required?

· Using Local Solutions Does Not Preclude Rebanding. If local
solutions do not appear to be working, FCC could revisit rebanding.

 Local Solutions Can Include Frequency Swaps

· Voluntary, localized frequency swaps would cost-effectively address
discrete interference situations without burdening uninvolved licensees.
Local Solutions Can Include Best Practices

· CMRS licensees could decrease power,
increase antenna height, change
antenna patterns, or reduce down-tilt.     <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<How many times have I pounded
the table on this one?

· CMRS licensees could avoid utilizing frequencies that cause
intermodulation products.

· Public safety licensees could increase signal strength.

· Public safety licensees could upgrade to receivers with intermodulation
specifications of 70 dB, which are more immune to intermodulation
interference than receivers with specifications less than 70 dB.
· Rules could be implemented to quickly identify and hold accountable
interference-causers.

V. REBANDING WOULD BE HIGHLY DETRIMENTAL TO
NEXTEL'S COMPETITORS IN THE DISPATCH MARKET

Southern LINC, Nextel's Largest Competitor For Dispatch
Service, Would Be Detrimentally Impacted

· Under Consensus Plan, portion of 800 MHz band above 816/861 MHz
would be CMRS and portion below 816/861 MHz would be non-
CMRS.

· Southern and Nextel both operate SMR systems below 816/861 MHz.
Under Consensus Plan, Nextel would move to "new" CMRS portion.
Southern would be left in non-CMRS portion and would need a special
exception to CMRS prohibition to operate.

· Other regulatory disparities would include:
 Forcing Southern to conform to potential standards of non-
CMRS portion of band, such as restrictions on power and
emission limits that could hinder its ability to compete and
expand.

. Precluding Southern from taking advantage of pro-CMRS
aspects of CMRS band, such as technical standards and licensing
flexibility.

· Under Consensus Plan, Southern would still be required to relocate.
Some providers estimate that approximately 30% of a provider's
subscribers would leave it due to relocation inconveniences.

· Southern paid approximately $50 million at auction for 800 MHz
General Category spectrum. Consensus Plan would force it to relocate
to less valuable spectrum.

B. Dispatch Providers Other Than Southern LINC Could Be
Detrimentally Impacted

· Many dispatch providers would be required to relocate.

· Some dispatch providers were already forced to relocate during Upper
200 SMR Rulemaking and consequently lost many subscribers. Forcing
another move and loss of more subscribers would be highly inequitable.

· Many licensees paid tens of millions of dollars at auction for 800 MHz
General Category spectrum. Consensus Plan would force them to move
to less valuable spectrum.

VI. THE CONSENSUS PLAN HAS NUMEROUS FLAWS IN ADDITION
TO THE MANDATORY REBANDING PROVISION

Proposed Funding For Consensus Plan Is Beyond FCC's
Authority And Is Highly Conditional And Tenuous    <<<<<<<<< Alan, Looks like I'm not the
only one question the FCC's authority.

· FCC lacks authority to require Nextel to fund Consensus Plan.

· No provision for continuing to fund relocations if Nextel's contribution
runs out prior to completion of relocations.

· Nextel would pay out its contribution in relatively small installments
over approximately three years (or more). No real assurance that
funding will continue to be paid if Nextel goes bankrupt, is bought out,
etc.

· Nextel has stated that its contribution is contingent on FCC adopting
every aspect of Consensus Plan as written.

. Relocation Coordination Committee Has Many Legal And
Practical Problems

· RCC would oversee relocation of 800 MHz licensees.

· RCC would be comprised of Nextel, two members of LMCC that
represent private wireless, and two members of LMCC that represent
public safety.

· Questionable as to whether FCC would have authority to implement
RCC. (Possible violations of Government Corporation Control Act,
Federal Advisory Committee Act, and constitute impermissible
subdelegation of authority.)

· RCC would lack oversight, transparency, and accountability (e.g.,
decision-making processes would apparently be conducted behind
closed doors; no requirements to account for spending of Nextel's
funding).

· RCC not likely to be fully representative of licensees on 800 MHz band;
more likely to be comprised of Nextel and other Consensus Plan
signatories.

 Licensees Would Be Required To Divulge Confidential And
Competitively Sensitive Information Regarding Their Systems
· Such information is not necessary to facilitate relocation.
· Confidentiality of the information could not be assured.

. Consensus Plan Does Not Provide Sufficient Appellate Recourse
· Licensees being relocated would have virtually no recourse for
appealing decisions of RCC.

VII. IF THE COMMISSION ADOPTS A REBANDING PLAN,
SOUTHERN LINC SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH CONTIGUOUS
SPECTRUM IMMEDIATELY BELOW 816.5/861.5 MHz

Southern is opposed to rebanding. However, in the alternative:

· If FCC grants Nextel blocks of contiguous spectrum through rebanding,
regulatory parity requires that Southern be provided with similar
allocation (same type spectrum and same operational rules).

· FCC should adopt flexible band plan that extends "cellularized" band to
below 816/861 MHz for geographical areas corresponding to Southern's
license holdings in each area. Southern would be given exclusive use of
this extension.

· Graphical representation of foregoing is attached as Appendix A.

· Band plan for all licensees in 806-824/851-869 MHz frequency range
within geographical areas of Appendix A is attached as Appendix B.

Appendix A

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513984256

Appendix B

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513984258
--
    "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