Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: Charles Werner & Moto's 800 MHz interference "fix"]

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 11:33:27 -0400

------- Original Message --------
   From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Charles Werner & Moto's 800 MHz interference "fix"

Excellent observations, Mr. Makky.  I might also add (in addition to your points) that
viewed as an "instead of re-banding" it also (in no particular order of importance):  (1)
fails to provide public safety with additional 800 MHz spectrum; (2) has no funding
mechanism for this massive addition of infrastructure; (3) assumes that the entire 800 MHz
world is Motorola infrastructure (of course, we'll wait to see if the other folks can
develop something similar); (4) has only been partially successful in trials; (5)
completely misreads Appendix F (there was never an agreement by the public safety folks to
increase their signal levels across the board; (6) assumes that only public safety folks
are having an interference problem, etc. etc.

You also note the numerous fallacies of the 2.7% figure.  In addition to your
observations, that figure seems to assume that each public safety agency counts as ONE
problem, when in fact each licensee with an interference problem may by experiencing
problems at dozens of locations (in the City of Denver's case, it's twenty-four
locations).  Plus, as Nextel and cellular licensees continue to built out infrastructure,
it only increases those problem locations.  So, its a massive undercount.  And again, it
assumes no interference has been experienced by non-public safety licensees in its
"count".

However, as viewed as a COMPLIMENT to re-banding, it is a very exciting development, and
exactly what we were hoping the manufacturers would develop when Appendix F was
developed.  Thus, it is a piece of an overall solution, not a solution in-and-of itself.
We hope that these kinds of developments will continue.

Alan S. Tilles, Esquire
Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A.
www.shulmanrogers.com

> From: "Steven J. Makky, Sr., ENP"
> <smakky@p...>
> Date: Sat May 10, 2003 10:14 am
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Charles Werner...
>
>
> >CHARLES WERNER-Chair,
> >IAFC Technology
> >Advisory Group, wrote:
> >
> >"It appears that Motorola may have
> >developed a new solution that can
> >resolve the interference issues that
> >have arisen between public safety
> >radio systems and Nextel and other
> >commercial wireless services."
>
> Not everyone agrees with that. It is the desire of Motorola to build
> switchable attenuators into the transceivers that are marketed to public
> safety and increase system ERP to affect the signal contours within the
> served area. Essentially, this is "jacking up" the power to compensate for
> the receiver attenuation. This has a number of implications:
>
> 1) Service contours expand and so do interference contours. In a balanced
> system of frequency reuse, this will mean that public safety may create its
> own interference to itself.
>
> 2) More (extremely costly) equipment has to be purchased - or replaced - on
> both the fixed-end and subscriber portions of the system. No surprise that
> this comes from a manufacturer who stands to profit from this massive
> replacement initiative. This manufacturer also produces the equipment that
> is causing the interference.
>
> 3) Increasing system talk-out power does absolutely nothing to solve the
> pollution to a quiet noisefloor. This is not a solution, it is a mask to
> the existing problem.
>
> 4) Motorola's Sharkey cites the APCO questionnaire that indicates only
> 2.7% of 800 MHz users are seriously impacted. This is a completely
> invalid assertion. The questionnaire conducted was INFORMAL and
> participation was NON-COMPULSORY; participants were largely technical
> managers who were already following the active proceedings of Project 39
> as well as the initiatives of the various committees who were trying to assess
> the validity and types of interference.
>
> APCO DID NOT FUND massive publicity of the survey to approach the
> 2,139 800 MHz public safety licensees POTENTIALLY affected by Nextel
> interference. As such, there was not a broad base of respondents that would
> have commented had a wider base of respondents been developed by a
> funded research project versus an informal questionnaire. It is my suspicion
> that had there been such funded survey, the result would have been
> significantly greater than 2.7%. Embracing this figure would make it easy to
> downplay the impact of such desensitization to the public safety community
> using 800 MHz systems.
>
> 5) If interference is present in 2.7% of all systems, couldn't it be
> extrapolated that similar systems using similar equipment under similar
> conditions would experience interference given the foray of an ESMR into
> the public safety system's service area if there is no present-day interference?
>
> I caution all that this plan is not a panacea and I disagree with D/C Werner
> that this is an acceptable alternative to the Consensus Plan and would create
> the dangerous precedent of justifying simply raising power levels whenever
> any degree of interference is received rather than resolving the problem
> directly.
>
> It is my opinion that the Consensus Plan, if implemented, would completely
> and permanently resolve present contention between public safety and ESMRs.
>
> Steven J. Makky, Sr., ENP
> Chairman, Technology Subcommittee,
> NPSPAC Region 24 700 MHz Regional Planning Committee
>

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/YoVfrB/XP.FAA/uetFAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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