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

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:05:49 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
From: "Rik Rasmussen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Reasons I am against the plan

> Well then the FCC has no one to blame except for themselves if the
> slight of hand was played on them.  The NEXTEL licenses do note that
> they have interconnect which is all the FCC requires in the licensing
> process.

Netwroked sites, not interconnect. They came at the business as a networked
(and interconnected) SMR. What they changed was the area tower, large
foorprint configuration, to small tower in coverage area, small foorprint
configuration.

> Small Amounts?  NEXTEL licenses routinely have 200+ frequencies
> licensed at each location.  With the coordination costs at over
> $100.00 per frequency per site that is over $200,000 per tower site
> location.  Now I'm sure they get some quantity discounts but that is
> still a lot of cash with as many sites they have deployed across the
> country.

Paenuts in today's wireless business model. I have never seen a site of
their's that uses that many frequencies. That doesn't mean there is not one
somewhere.

> Well that is the gamble they are taking.  At least if they have a
> continuous band they can be more accurate in predicting
> intermodulation and maybe even begin utilizing auto-tune combiners
> instead of hybrid combiners which have been proven in the past to be
> dirty when utilized with multiple digital signals.

My guess is, if they get that contiguous spectrum, the temptation to cash it
in will be too much to resist. Imagine what this could be worth to one of
the other 800 MHz A or B carriers. Couple that with the competition of other
carriers offering PTT service and the cash looks even better.

> >
> > I believe this would lead to court battles for a decade, meanwhile
> homeland
> > security suffers.
>
> We have interference issues right now that need to be resolved and
> besides who would sue who if they failed?  I think Motorola needs to
> get more involved being they manufacturer the equipment and had it
> type accepted.  All in all they have been very quiet in this whole
> deal.

If they do NOT get the plan approved, my predicition is they will die and
then the FCC can recover the spectrum and start over with benefit of
hindsight's education.

> >
> > 700 MHz spectrum is already reserved for Public Safety.
>
> No kidding...and under the plan the already reserved 700 MHz and re-
> aligned 806 channels would be right next to each other.

Not much additional benefit for Public Safety in that compared to the
existing situation, given that most Public Safety channels might not move
anyway.

As the manager of an 800 Mhz Public Safety system, I am concerned about the
current situation. I just don't want the Public Safety issue being used as a
white wash for a spectrum give away.

==========================================
Henrik "Rik" Rasmussen
Editor: Two Way Radio Directory:
The Two Way Radio Directory has links to hundreds of industry related web
pages.
The Directory Bookstore has a great selection of radio books at good
discounts.
Visit now at 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: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:13:38 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
From: "J. Barbour" <[email-masked]>
Subject:Re: Reasons I am against the plan

> 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.

No no no-hold it-don't say Nextel has 'been around longer'. Cellular has
been around since the late 70's, and recently celebrated the anniversary of
the first call made 30 years ago. Nextel has only been around since the
early 90's. No I don't count any previous iterations prior to the iDEN
system.

>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.

Who cares? The problem is interference, not capacity. Interference to public
safety takes precedence over a private carriers capacity. As time goes on,
I'm sure Nextel can bid on other spectrum the same as anyone else.

> 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.

But how much would anyone else have had to pay to get the same
spectrum/channels Nextel now has?
A large amount of the licensing fees and other charges have not been paid,
and the FCC has not put their foot down and demanded payment as they would
with any other LMR/SMR licensee.

> 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.

I think most of these comments relate to new spectrum that Nextel does not
currently occupy. At least that's the way it came accross to me, and if
that's not the case, I would agree with this. No one should be made to pay
for the same spectrum twice. However, as I stated above, there are channels
that Nextel has not fully paid for, and they should be made to pay up or
vacate.

> 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.

Nextel is already operating outside of their limits at many, maybe most, of
their sites (I will state that not EVERY Nextel is that way. There are some
local engineers/technicians who cleaned up the sites they can. But the
pressure is on to cram more conversations into the same space, which will
lead to problems.)

> 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.

I'm am really tired of repeating myself-Public safety should not be the ones
to move! Nextel is the newcomer, Nextel is causing interference, they need
to fix it or move!

>  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

Not completely true-for a radio to do both requires electronically switched
IF crystal filters for both bandwidths in the receiver. Much, maybe most, of
the base station equipment has one or the other, and converting is an
expensive proposition. I know of two systems for sure here that use GE
MastrII stations, and converting those radios to narrowband is not
economically feasable. I am positive that there is the same situation on
NPSPAC systems, as many systems use stations that were built as narrow band
only (I'm fairly certain the MSF-5000's were one or the other, not both).

Jim

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:17:05 -0400

------- Original Message --------
From: "ks4vt" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Reasons I am against the plan

Jack,

I said it and with all the years of going thru equipment manuals I 
have never seen equipment that was totally dedicated to 821 NPSPAC, 
they all referenced SMR 806-869 MHz (that included 821).  Of course I 
have seen NPSPAC only system as the one I manage is a mixed mode 28 
channel 10 tower site 821/806 system where everything is combined 
together on the receive and transmit side.  I also just did a 
frequency change and removed 2 806 channels and replaced them with 2 
821 NPSPAC channels.  No muss, no fuss...reprogram the base stations, 
re-tune the combiner, and change the code plugs in the main and 
remote site controllers, done!  Besides, it would not be cost 
effective for a manufacturer of 800 infrastrusture to make "NPSPAC 
Only" equipment.  There just aren't enough systems to justify this.

Now maybe the older generation MSF5000's require a filter change, I'm 
only familiar with the VHF style, but it shouldn't be that bad.  THe 
equipment is still supported.

As far as the subscribers...I have only seen 806 radios (like the 
Motorola STX) that wouldn't do the 821 splinters but not the other 
way around.  If it had the capability of doing 821 NPSPAC it could do 
806 SMR.

But like you say....I maybe be wrong.  :-)

Mark

 Jack Daniel 
<JackDaniel@R...> wrote:
> I lost track of who first said;
> 
> "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."
> 
> I guess you mean you never heard of radio equipment that was NPSPAC 
> only, because there are lots of NPSPAC only 'systems' in service.
> 
> And there's more to a trunked system than the radio transcievers.
> There's a lot of things like transmit combiners, antennas, tower top
> amps and reciver multicouplers that won't 're-tune' (the term Nextel
> promotes minimize a massive task) that far. 
> 
> It isn't like changing channels on a Nextel site that doesn't use 
this
> higher level (and cost) of filtering.
> 
> Before someone screams foul, I didn't say ALL brands and models of 
these
> things wouldn't accomodate that change, (i.e. TX RX's broadband
> antennas, etc) but the older the NPSPAC system, the more that will 
need
> filter mods and/or replacement.
> 
> But I may be wrong.........
> Jack Daniel
> ==========================================================

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:15:57 -0400

------- Original Message --------
From: Jack Daniel <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Reasons I am against the plan

"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."

It isn't like changing channels on a Nextel site that doesn't use this
higher level (and cost) of filtering.

Before someone screams foul, I didn't say ALL brands and models of these
things wouldn't accomodate that change, (i.e. TX RX's broadband
antennas, etc) but the older the NPSPAC system, the more that will need
filter mods and/or replacement.

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:08:25 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
   From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Reasons I am against the plan

In a message dated 4/24/2003 8:47:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [email-masked]
writes:

> See last answer. I don't think Nextel can make changes at their sites that
> will eliminate the problem. I have actually never blamed Nextel for the
> problem, even though it is in fact their stations that contribute to the
> problem. I have always laid blame on the ineptness of the FCC for not
> anticipating the problem of combining two very different systems in the same
> band. Give them the benefit of the doubt, that this is asking too much, it
> still should fall to them to solve the problem without creating a windfall
> treasure for Nextel stockholders.
>
>
> A - That's probably true (FCC should have expected).  However, you must recognize that
> Cell A and (some) B are also causing interference, so the problem is really larger than
> just saying that the FCC should have anticipated this when they gave Nextel their
> initial (or subsequent) waivers.  We started out the right way, with the initial 800/900
> allocations being far apart: conventional (851-854 MHz); trunked (861-865 MHz); and
> cellular 869+ MHz.  But, then in the late 1980's when the second allocation was made
> (trunked and conventional in 856-860 MHz), and the third allocation (900 MHz B/ILT/SMR
> and NPSPAC), there should have been more attention to the fact that we were pushing
> differing allocations closer together.
>
>

A - True, but only a portion of it.  But we're talking here about making that PS
allocation at 700 MHz even larger.  Plus, putting 800 MHz NPSPAC systems at the old
General Category channels means that the current 700 MHz PS allocation and the new NPSPAC
PS allocation would be contiguous (from the repeater side, not the mobile side).  Some of
the PS folks see some real benefits there.  That is, if we EVER get the broadcasters out
of 700 MHz.

Having said that, in general your comments are nicely expressed and well taken.

Alan Tilles

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:06:49 -0400

------- Original Message --------
   From: [email-masked]
Subject:  Re: Reasons I am against the plan

In a message dated 4/24/2003 8:08:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [email-masked] writes:

> finished.  As I have never heard of a NPSPAC only system, the re-

Mark - one correction or maybe clarification.  As part of moving NPSPAC to the old General
Category channels (851-854 MHz), the General Category channels will be re-channelized to
be consistent with the 12.5 kHz NPSPAC spacing.  In other words, the entire NPSPAC Region
Plans will just be moved down 16 MHz (other than any "tweaks" that a Region Committee
might want to make to update that Region's NPSPAC Plan).  What this will require is new
software for NPSPAC radios to have a new channel look-up scheme.

Alan T.

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:10:16 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
From: "Stephen Devine" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Reasons I am against the plan

"In other words, the entire NPSPAC Region Plans will just be moved down 16
MHz (other than any "tweaks" that a Region Committee might want to make to
update that Region's NPSPAC Plan)"......

Alan T

Alan

            Just a slight correction: The channels will be reduced 15 MH, z
866 to 851, not 16 MHz

Steve Devine, Region 24 (Missouri) Chairperson

Stephen T. Devine
Patrol Frequency Coordinator
Communications Division
Missouri State Highway Patrol

Office (573) 526-6105
FAX    (573) 526-1112

------------------------ 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:03:20 -0400

------- Original Message --------

> their SMR configuration.  So here, what is the difference?  I don't

Correct, originally it was a lottery. Eventually, it was realized that we
were giving away a national resource and the auction was implemented. Nextel
acquired the current frequencies as they are. If they want contiguous
spectrum with the resulting huge increase in value in today's wideband data
oriented market, they should pay. When they originally began acquiring
spectrum, it was to network SMR systems. They did a slight of hand on the
FCC and ended up being a "cellular" carrier.

> the PCS providers have payed in a lump sum to get 1.9 GHz. spectrum.

I would compromise with giving them credit for the small amounts they have
paid to the U.S. Treasury. They could also be given a credit for channels
they abandon in the lower portion and the FCC could license or auction those
to others for the original intended type of system uses.

> bring themselves into compliance.  This is totally their gamble.

I believe this would lead to court battles for a decade, meanwhile homeland
security suffers.

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:15:08 -0400

------- Original Message --------
   From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Reasons I am against the plan

Neither of you is wrong.  I totally understand's Rik's "feelings", and actually share many
of them.  Unfortunately, sometimes one has to make a business decision that doesn't jive
with what their heart tells them it SHOULD be.  So, some people (including the people
directing me at this point) have put that "heart issue" aside, looked at what the
realities of the situation is from ALL sides, and made a decision that a good compromise
is better than a decision which doesn't go that person's way at all.  Now, one could argue
whether it's a "good" compromise.  However, thus far, it's the only compromise that has
been proposed where the pain is spread out in as an equitable manner as possible.

Again, trying to reach a compromise doesn't make anyone right or wrong, or good people or
bad people.  Nor does it make, per se, anyone who doesn't wish to compromise a good or bad
person.

Alan T.

In a message dated 4/24/2003 11:16:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [email-masked] writes:

>  "Rik Rasmussen"
> <hrasmussen@n...> wrote:
> As I am also a manager of an 800 MHz Public Safety System I can see
> we have different thoughts on the proposal...interesting.
>
> Mark

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:12:25 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
From: "ks4vt" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Reasons I am against the plan

--- landmobilelawyer@a... 
wrote:
> 
> Mark - one correction or maybe clarification.  As part of moving 
NPSPAC to 
> the old General Category channels (851-854 MHz), the General 
Category 
> channels will be re-channelized to be consistent with the 12.5 kHz 
NPSPAC 
> spacing.  In other words, the entire NPSPAC Region Plans will just 
be moved 
> down 16 MHz (other than any "tweaks" that a Region Committee might 
want to 
> make to update that Region's NPSPAC Plan).  What this will require 
is new 
> software for NPSPAC radios to have a new channel look-up scheme.

Alan,

My understanding is that the current NPSPAC users will relocate to 
the old General Category channels but they would not conform to the 
NPSPAC rules of 20KHz channels on 12.5 KHz centers as they are 
currently aligned in NPSPAC.  Basically they would conform to the 806 
channel spacing rules and modulation but would still have to maintain 
their current 40 dBu contours as they currently are to protect their 
co-channel users.

Mark P...can you shed any additional info on this from the Florida 
Regions prospective?

Mark