Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Paging Companies Question New Channel Spacing

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:25:19 -0400

Paging Companies Question New Channel Spacing

Jun 18, 2003

U.S. regional and local paging providers face enough obstacles to sustaining their
businesses without having to contend with new users operating on channels that
could be too close to avoid interference.

Although the services allowed within 12.5 kHz of paging providers' frequencies in
the 450 MHz-470 MHz band are low-power operations, these incumbent paging
companies are telling the Federal Communications Commission that spacing is still
too close for comfort. The American Association of Paging Carriers (AAPC) is
asking the FCC to reconsider its order (WT Docket No. 01-146) that allocated
channels for low-power operations in the 450 MHz-470 MHz band.

"The whole issue of paging interests just fell through the cracks because nobody
was looking at it from that perspective," says Kenneth Hardman, an AAPC member and
a partner in the Moir & Hardman law firm in Washington, D.C.

Prior to releasing its order, the FCC relied on the Land Mobile Communications
Council's (LMCC's) recommendations for channel allocations for low-power
operations in the band. The LMCC recommended a 12.5 kHz separation between users,
rather than the standard 25 kHz separation that had been used in the band.

"Their perspective is to provide an appropriate outlet for people who need low
power as well as those that have regular full-power stations," Hardman explains.
"This was just a plan to accommodate those requirements in the context of the
broader allocation and the channel splitting that was occurring. In effect, a
designation of certain bands for low- power purposes only." Paging operators
aren't opposed to allocating frequencies for new uses in the spectrum band they
use; they'd just like some more room between their systems and those used by such
entities as construction companies, electricians, plumbers and others needing
short-term, on-site communications.

"It's a question of whether [paging operators] legally should have to operate with
low-power stations only 12.5 kHz removed," Hardman observes.

According to a Georgia paging system operator, 12.5 kHz offset won't work. "They
set aside these paging channels to operate as paging without interfering with
two-way, telemetry or anything else," Tim Jones, president of MPW Paging near
Atlanta. "We've got a situation where somebody who is not an engineer saying, 'We
can get more frequencies if we squeeze this in here.' But they're going to create
all kinds of problems and headaches."

Regional paging carriers aren't offering all the bells and whistles of cellular
and PCS carriers. They're also not competing with nationwide paging brands, many
of which have emerged from bankruptcy reorganization (WDN, April 24, 2002).
Reliability is a regional paging operator's primary calling card, and low-power
services operating 12.5 kHz away would threaten that.
"Paging is in a difficult competitive environment, with inroads made by the
messaging services of the cellular and broadband PCS guys," Hardman says. "But one
of the strong selling points is the reliability of the coverage. So, if you have
things that degrade that reliability, that's a problem. You can assume that the
paging industry will be protective of its operating environment."

Regional paging companies' difficulties were only compounded during the proceeding
that led to the WT 01-146 rulemaking. Because the AAPC wasn't established until
after the rulemaking, regional operators were not represented as a group in the
proceeding. While that fact alone isn't likely to lead the commission to
reconsider the order, including that point in its petition will help the AAPC
impress the FCC with its case.

The LMCC doesn't agree that the new allocation will cause interference with paging
operations, or that paging operators weren't represented in the proceeding. The
rules that were adopted in Wt. 01-146 were from a proposal introduced in 1997,
when the Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) included paging
operations in its representation.
"This shouldn't have come as any sort of surprise to them," says Don Vasek,
chairman of the LMCC Spectrum Management Task Force.

MPW doesn't agree. By the time the rulemaking was proposed and adopted, the PCIA
wasn't representing paging companies using the 450 MHz-470 MHz band. "Nobody at
LMCC was representing paging, says Jones, who is secretary/treasurer and a past
president of the SouthernNet Association paging industry group. "They did not
invite me to come to it."
In addition, the rulemaking includes safeguards against adjacent-channel
interference along with the change to 12.5 kHz offset. "I really don't think
they'll be too much of a problem," says Vasek, who also is executive director of
spectrum operations and analysis at the Industrial Telecommunications Association.

However, part of the problem for the AAPC is that regional paging operators often
don't hold the same sway as other wireless sectors with the FCC. A particular
hindrance, Hardman adds, is being regulated by the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau's Commercial Wireless office but working under Private Wireless
regulations. "Commercial Wireless may not even know, certainly is not particularly
involved in what Private Wireless is doing in these rulemakings," he says. "That's
another reason why you get some of these anomalies, because Private Wireless goes
off and does its thing and Commercial Wireless doesn't even know what's happened."

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

---

From: Jack Daniel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:24:35 -0700

I can't understand why these paging people are getting upset.

The poeple on offsets aren't breaking the law are they?
They aren't violating their FCC authorizations are they?
Did they think UHF or paging was immune to messes like the 800 MHz band?
 
Well, Welcome to the wonderful new world of technically unsound FCC
rulings and waivers where incombents have no protection from
interference or loss of business.

You may have to go out of business to promote someone elses concept of a
'competitive environment' for the benefit of the public..

It's the "in" thing to do; like burning all the trees to save the
forest.

Hang on to your spectrum analysers everyone, you ain't seen nothing yet.
UHF channels at 6.25, VHF at 7.5 KHz spacings, Ultrawide usage
'overlays', CDMA (aka Spread spectrum) systems that pump out 1+ MHz wide
IM swaths, powerline data distribution RF radations, HDTV digital
'artifacts' splattering for miles, etc, etc. 

I'm betting "interference" will soon replace "interoperability" as next
bottomless federal aid money pit.

But I may be wrong......
Jack Daniel
==========================================================

[email-masked] wrote:
>                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.