Subject: [NEXTEL-1] M/A-COM, Inc. On Technical and Spectrum Requirements For Public Safety Agency Communication WT Docket No. 96-86

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 15:19:46 -0400

Before the
                            FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                                     Washington, D.C.
                                     In the Matter of

                             The Development of Operational,
                           Technical and Spectrum Requirements
                 For Meeting Federal, State and Local WT Docket No. 96-86
                            Public Safety Agency Communication
                            Requirements Through the Year 2010

Reply by M/A-COM, Inc. to the Comments of the Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials - International (APCO); The City of Tulsa,
Oklahoma; Pinellas County, Florida; King County, Washington; the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP); The Major City Chiefs;
The National Sheriffs Association; The Major Counties Sheriffs Association;
E.F. Johnson Company; and Daniels Electronics Ltd. in support of the
Petition for Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order filed by
Motorola, Inc.

April 11, 2003

M/A-COM, Inc.
P.O. Box 2000
221Jefferson Ridge Parkway
Lynchburg VA
(434) 455-6600
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513883330

INTRODUCTION

M/A-COM, Inc. (M/A-COM), pursuant to Section 1.429 of the Commissions rules,1
and Sections 1.1200, et seq. of the Commission?s rules,2 respectfully submits this Reply
to the
comments filed by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International
(APCO), The City of Tulsa, Oklahoma; Pinellas County, Florida; King County, Washington
Information and Telecommunications Services Division; the International Association of
Chiefs
of Police (IACP); The Major City Chiefs; The National Sheriffs Association; The Major
Counties Sheriffs Association; E.F. Johnson Company; and Daniels Electronics Ltd. c/o
International Market Access, Inc.3 in support of the Petition for Reconsideration of the
Commission?s Fifth Report and Order4 in the above-captioned proceeding, filed by Motorola,

Inc.

As a first matter, M/A-COM notes the Commissions Rules do not provide for
statements in support of the Petition at this point in the proceedings.  Thus, the
Comments in
support of the Petition might be considered procedurally defective.  However, the Comments
in
support of the Petition, although not properly marked, might also be deemed ex parte
filings in
accordance with the Commission?s rules.6  Therefore, with an overabundance of caution,
M/A-
COM is replying to the Comments in accordance with the Commissions rules governing
Petitions for Reconsideration in a rulemaking proceeding and/or the Commissions rules
governing ex parte filings.

BACKGROUND

M/A-COM previously filed timely Opposition9 to the Petition.  The M/A-COM
Opposition includes significant discussion outlining reasons suggesting why the Commission

should and could reject the Petition in its entirety.  The Opposition specifically noted
M/A-
COM concerns regarding the legal sufficiency of the Petition, concerns about the
procedural
efficiency of the Petition, and concerns regarding the accuracy of the facts asserted in
the
Petition, which such facts are alleged to justify a favorable response by the Commission
in
response to the Petition.  The Opposition specifically noted the Commission?s actions as
documented by the Fifth Report and Order were based on a complete and substantial record,
and most importantly, the Opposition clearly noted the Commission?s actions as documented
in
the Fifth Report and Order were ?in the public interest.

DISCUSSION

Close analysis of the Comments filed in support of the Petition indicates the Comments
do not add any new grounds to the proceeding record that would justify favorable
Commission
reaction to the Petition. All of the grounds contained in the Comments have already been
asserted in numerous earlier parts of the record.

M/A-COM also notes its Opposition completely addresses the merits of each and every
point made in the Comments.  Therefore, as part of this reply, M/A-COM repeats, reiterates
and
realleges each and every point made in its Opposition as though each and every point was
more
fully set forth in this reply.  Regardless, M/A-COM will highlight several issues in this
reply.

The first point to be highlighted is the fact all of the Comments, as well as the Petition

itself, fail to recognize the existence of the Refarming10 mandates for spectrum
efficiency that
take effect on January 1, 2005. The net effect of these mandates is provision of two plus
years
of so-called field verification for the spectrally efficient technologies before any
mandated dates
that have been imposed for the 700 MHz public safety band.  M/A-COM will meet the
Refarming spectrum efficiency requirements in a timely manner. Additionally, M/A-COM will
apply or is applying the spectrally efficient technologies developed as a result of
Refarming to
all other public safety bands as soon as feasible.  In any case, M/A-COM will provide 700
MHz
equipment satisfying the Fifth Report and Order efficiency mandates well in advance of the

dates required by the Fifth Report and Order.

Another point M/A-COM wants to highlight in this reply concerns the statements made
in some of the Comments11 and in the Petition alleging the dates adopted in the Fifth
Report and
Order will impede those 800 MHz licensees who want to expand their 800 MHz systems into
the narrowband segment of the 700 MHz band.  Based on an assessment of the allegations
contained in the Comments and the Petition, and the technology trends in the land mobile
radio
market, there is no justification for allowing the minimal spectrum efficiency
requirements
associated with the 800 MHz band, i.e. 1 voice path per 25 kHz of occupied bandwidth, to
migrate into the 700 MHz public safety band.

Regardless, M/A-COM knows the dates adopted in the Fifth Report and Order will not
impede existing 800 MHz licensees when trying to expand into the narrowband segment of the

700 MHz public safety band.  Expansion of an 800 MHz system into 700 MHz necessitates the

 Effective January 1, 2005 manufacturers must include a 6.25 kHz voice efficiency
requirement in any equipment
submitted for certification in the 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz bands.  New equipment
requiring certification
that does not have a 6.25 kHz or equivalent mode, even old previously certified equipment
that require re-
certification for whatever reason, can not be certified, and thus can not be marketed or
sold.
addition of new 700 MHz base stations, which will of necessity meet the 700 MHz
requirements.

Multi-mode, multi-band subscriber units satisfying both the 800 MHz band and
700 MHz band requirements can be employed by users who need to operate in either band.
Any
licensee who wants to retain the right to expand their existing 800 MHz system into 700
MHz
using 12.5 kHz technology12 need only apply on or before December 31, 2006 for the
appropriate general use licenses in the narrowband segment of the 700 MHz public safety
band.
This is not a significant imposition, particularly when one remembers use of 12.5
technology
must cease within 10 years, probably much less than 10 years, from the time the particular

licensee will commence utilization of the 12.5 technology in the 700 MHz band.
Additionally, there are network based solutions, available today, that could, and
probably should, be included whenever an existing 800 MHz licensee desires to expand into
the
700 MHz narrowband segment.  These network solutions not only facilitate expansion into
700
MHz, they allow such expansion without requiring any change to existing 800 MHz subscriber

equipment, regardless of whether or not such 800 MHz subscriber equipment is multiband,
and
regardless of the technology utilized in any single mode 800 MHz subscriber equipment.

M/A-COM is fully aware licensees in many geographic areas of the United States areas
will not be able to use the 700 MHz public safety band for many years due to the presence
of
broadcast TV in this country and in the border countries.  While the United States DTV
transition date has been established13 it is not unrealistic to believe substantial use of
the 700
MHz public safety band in many geographic areas will not occur until 2010 or later.  In
any
case, as more and more time elapses before actual utilization of the 700 MHz public safety
band
commences, the less justification there is to allow anything less than the most spectrally

efficient voice operations in the band.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of whether or not the Comments are procedurally defective, they do not
assert any legally sufficient new grounds justifying a favorable response by the
Commission to
the requests made in the Petition.

Therefore, M/A-COM again respectfully suggests the Commission reject the Petition in
its entirety, and reaffirm the rules adopted pursuant to the Fifth Report and Order.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. Speidel, Esq.
Manager, Regulatory Policy

M/A-COM, Inc.
221 Jefferson Ridge Parkway
P.O. Box 2000
Lynchburg, VA  24501
(434) 455-9465