Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: 800 MHz Consensus Plan "Scoreboard" as of...

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:18:33 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
From: "J. Barbour" <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: 800 MHz Consensus Plan "Scoreboard" as of...

>$3-5M to retune, re-synchronize, reprogram, and re-filter a three site 5
channel system?  Seems like it >would be more like 100K (tops).

It cannot be "retuned". The whole system would have to be replaced, because
the frequency change Nextel wants is a whole different band (700 Mhz). The
equipment just won't go there. It's also what is currently called "wideband
FM" (which is narrowband to most of us in the industry...;c), and 700 will
require 'narrowband'.

>There is a real need to spectrally partition interference limited designs
from noise limited designs.

I wholeheartedly agree-but it should have been done in the first place.
Nextel should have been assigned a unique segment of spectrum away from
other services.

>Nextel is the major interference limited design licensee in 800 MHz, so it
is natural to focus on them
>(besides, they are willing to put money up for the move).

But they are not willing to foot the entire bill. Why should other users
have to pay a penny towards someone else's problem?

> Under the consensus plan PS, SMR, and B->I/LT will move far enough away
from the cellular band that >the cellular/NPSPAC interference problem will
also be resolved.

This is, again, a separate issue and should not be included in this plan.
The solution here is different, since the cause is different.

>Even with 100 dB OOBE coupling into a victim receiver (more that you are
going to get in the rules), >there may be a quarter km desense region around
ANY site with regard to near/far issues.  This can >reach to 1000m easily.

I'm assuming OOBE means out-of-band-emissions. The problem, again, can be
stated as 'out-of-channel-emissions'. We are dealing with receivers that
typically operate in the -120dBm region. If there is emissions (modulation
products) that exceed that level (figuring path losses in), it will be
heard, and desired signals will have to overcome it.
Yes, of course, distance will have a major effect on just how much the
receiver hears. But I don't believe that everyone is fully taking into
account just how much RF is coming out of these sites vs. the sensitivity of
the receivers. Like the DTV problems, I don't think Nextel (and others) are
used to dealing with receivers as sensitive as LMR requires and is capable
of.

> The rules as written will not provide protection from this, and to tighten
them up would cost PS and >others a fortune to bring their systems into
compliance.  It is really a near far issue, not a OOBE issue.

It is NOT public safety that needs to change. Their systems already far
exceed what is necessary, as long as they were set up right. (Yes, I agree
there are a lot of public safety systems that are not setup right, but it's
not near as prevalent on 800 as on lower bands.)

>Although there is aspects of the plan that I personally do not like, there
is no doubt that the plan is in >everyone's best long term interests.  It is
unfortunate that it is necessary to go through some >inconvenience, but in
the end it should prove to be worth it.
>Sean

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how a commercial carrier's needs/wants are
more important then public safety. Nextel is the newcomer to the band,
Nextel is causing the problem, Nextel must fix it or move. It really is that
simple! They have the money to do it, they have no excuses.
I guarantee that if I started using a new frequency, adjacent to existing
services, and I was causing interference to them, I would be the one who has
to either fix the problem or move, even *if* I am in compliance with the
rules (as long as they are as well).
Personally, I would be in favor of cellular and Nextel being forced to move
out of 800Mhz entirely. They have a lot more money, and are not as critical.
They can more easily afford to move, and the interruptions will be less
critical.

Jim

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online-No late fees! Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/YKLNcC/oEZFAA/AG3JAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

---

From: "Sean O'Hara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 06:52:58 -0400

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Sean O'Hara 
To: [email-masked] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: [800interference] Re: 800 MHz Consensus Plan "Scoreboard" as of...

No one is unattached.  We are all stakeholders one way or another.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Marcel 
  To: [email-masked] ; [email-masked] 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:15 PM
  Subject: [800interference] Re: 800 MHz Consensus Plan "Scoreboard" as of...

  I saw read that also............... 
  Not to debate the issue of "Independence" but when I think of independent I think of "Unattached". 

  But I maybe wrong.- 

  Sean O'Hara wrote: 

    I also developed and authored the comments from New York State, which if you notice is under the category of "reservations about the plan".  In our four filings, you will see that I am critical about several aspects of the Nextel and Consensus plans. However, I think that given the available options (and after a few "tweaks"), the Consensus plan will likely prove to be the best solution. Sean 
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Marcel
      To: [email-masked] ; [email-masked]
      Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 4:44 PM
      Subject: [800interference] Re: 800 MHz Consensus Plan "Scoreboard" as of...
       Alan, 
      Independent people commenting???? 

      Isn't Sean a "Contributor" along with APCO who is a supporter "The Plan"?? 

      I read APCO's draft to the crafters of the "The Plan" on proposed interference revisions from APCO. 

      I'm sure Sean can answer if you are unable to. 

      [email-masked] wrote: 

      >  one of the independent people commenting on the Plan (Sean), you're right, there's no use arguing. 
      > 
      > Alan Tilles 

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
      [email-masked] 

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

    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
    [email-masked] 

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

  -- 
      "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 

      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email-masked]

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

---

From: "Sean O'Hara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 06:43:12 -0400

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Sean O'Hara 
To: [email-masked] ; [email-masked] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [800interference] Re: 800 MHz Consensus Plan "Scoreboard" as of...

I also developed and authored the comments from New York State, which if you notice is under the category of "reservations about the plan".  In our four filings, you will see that I am critical about several aspects of the Nextel and Consensus plans.

However, I think that given the available options (and after a few "tweaks"), the Consensus plan will likely prove to be the best solution.

Sean
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Marcel 
  To: [email-masked] ; [email-masked] 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 4:44 PM
  Subject: [800interference] Re: 800 MHz Consensus Plan "Scoreboard" as of...

  Alan,

      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:07:54 -0400

radiopro1 wrote:

>
> Actually it is Marcel is detached rather than unattached.

Wow Mark!

And I just thought  you were the Telecommunications Manager for the
City of Fort Lauderdale. (oppps- I started a sentence with "And").

Now you can add G.C. (Grammar Cop) to your (or is "you're" or is it "yall"???) resume.
I'm sure the fine people of Fort Lauderdale will appreciate you using their their
Telecommunications Network to correct grammatical errors.

Too bad you did not commit the same amout of DD on your  invoices to Martin County.
Then you could have added M.C. (Math Cop) to the list.

>  Anytime
> the word Nextel is mentioned he loses it.

That is funny John said the same thing about you every time you heard my name mentioned at
IWCE.

The End-

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