Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Nextel Runs To The FCC To Knock a Technical Solution as the Sole Panacea.

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 00:02:39 -0400

Nextel Runs To The FCC To Knock a Technical Solution as the Sole Panacea.

Two days after Motorola sent a letter regarding a technical solution to resolve resolve
Public Safety interference to the FCC, Nextel is back at the Bureau claiming that a
technical solution alone is insufficient.

Nextel has repeatedly failed to provide ANY proof to the FCC that their plan will resolve
Public Safety interference issue. Nextel's presumption that a technical solution alone is
insufficient to resolve resolve Public Safety interference is unsupported.

So the saga continues.

I see a court battle in the future.

Who to believe?

Motorola who has 75  years in Manufacturing.........

                                        Or

Nextel who has NEVER manufactured  anything but Interference...........

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6514084915

---

From: "Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:32:11 -0000

Maybe what is needed is both.  Seperation in the band and addressing 
the front end of the radios (MTS2000).  If what is true in the 
receiver performance charts, maybe if NEXTEL increases adjacent 
channel protection to two (2) to three (3) channels (50 to 75KHz) for 
the 800 MHz Public Safety channels being utilized in a certain area 
in addition to adding the reciver mods, maybe we could have a 
workable solution.

It would take additional work on the coordination side, NEXTEL would 
loose a certain number of channels in certin markets, but it's 
something that could be looked at also.

Mark

> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?
native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6514084915

------------------------ 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/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 03:37:06 -0400

I agree additional separation would help the interference issue in some cases, however
giving the competitive landscape of  CMRS it may not be an option.

Channel separation will become more difficult in the future, Motorola has developed WiDEN
which requires multiple 25 Khz contiguous or non-contiguous channels. WiDEN will allow
Nextel to provide increased data speeds using existing hardware with just a software
upgrade. Nextel will require more channels per site to satisfy spectrum hungry WiDEN.
Interference issues are likely to increase.

iDEN's current "Occupied Bandwidth" is 18.5 Khz  (see attachment Fig. 3-1) for their Quad
dual band EBTS unit. What is also interesting here at certain levels iDEN may exceed the
FCC's emission mask if Motorola's chart below is correct. With the software upgrades to
WiDEN I would not be surprised if Motorola seeks a class II permissive change to modify
the operating characteristics of the EBTS.

Wall Street believes Nextel will select WiDEN or Flarion's OFMD technology as their data
migration path.

From Legg Mason report:

"We believe Nextel is forming its data strategy and is interested in Flarion's OFDM
technology, but may first upgrade
to Motorola's WiDEN, to give the company a comparable data product until Flarion has been
fully tested in the
network."

This opens the door for potentially a new type of  interference. How will an MTS-2000 fair
against WiDEN or  W-I-D-E Band Flarion technology? Who knows? Maybe the Flarion & iDEN
guys?