Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Nextel interference debate rages on

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:07:22 -0400

Nextel interference debate rages on
August 26, 2003 2:26pm
Mobile Radio Technology

Discussions at the Federal Communications Commission over how to fix public-safety
interference caused by Nextel Communications and other commercial mobile radio
operators in the 800 MHz band have reached a fever pitch in recent weeks.

It's clear the interference issue is one of the most complicated matters the
commission has ever dealt with as members of the wireless industry — ranging from
public-safety users to private wireless users to commercial wireless operators —
stand deeply and religiously divided over the issue.

Nextel and a group of public-safety agencies, including the Association of
Public-Safety Communications Officials, offered up their latest solution, dubbed
the “consensus plan,” to the interference problem in a Christmas Eve filing last
year, calling on the FCC to split the 800 MHz band into two parts: one for
cellular systems and one for public-safety systems.

In exchange, Nextel wants to receive for free 10 megahertz of spectrum in the 1.9
GHz (1910-1915-1995 MHz) to make up for the 10 megahertz it will surrender in the
700, 800 and 900 MHz bands to fix interference problems.

The Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, vehemently opposed to any
free gift of spectrum at 1.9 GHz, along with entities from the electric, gas and
water utilities, business and industrial users and incumbent SMR licensees have
joined the 800 MHz User Coalition opposing Nextel's plan and any rebanding of the
800 MHz band, preferring the FCC solve interference through a solution called the
“balanced approach” that employs mandated mitigation using best practices
solutions by establishing procedures to avoid interference instances as well as
adding technical rule modifications and using more advanced technology.

Participants of the 800 MHz User Coalition say they would suffer harm from
rebanding of the 800 MHz band.

“All suggestions (to the FCC) are reactive. The only proactive plan is the
consensus plan,” Barry West, chief technology officer with Nextel, told analysts
during the company's recent second-quarter conference call. “The public-safety
community and other consensus partners are still solidly behind the consensus
plan.”

While large associations representing the affected users such as APCO, the
Industrial Telecommunications Association (ITA) and the National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) continue to support Nextel's consensus plan,
some local and regional public-safety agencies, happy with their current systems
and concerned about funding issues, are beginning to take a critical look at the
consensus plan.

Earlier this summer, the City of Baltimore urged the NPSTC to review and support
the balanced approach to solving the 800 MHz interference problem, stating that
Baltimore already operates a modern trunked system that, while isn't entirely free
from interference, was purchased at great cost and meets the city's needs.

NPSTC didn't budge and asked Baltimore to reconsider its position, saying public
safety everywhere is at risk.

“Whenever you have public safety agencies involved, it becomes a political
problem,” said ITA President and CEO Laura Smith. “An officer or firefighter not
getting the assistance they need is very much a political problem. That's an
unacceptable side effect. You can't best-practice a problem away.”

Business plans are also at stake.

Mark Crosby, president of Access Spectrum, which is in the business of leasing
spectrum to private wireless users, recently filed his comments with the FCC
opposing the consensus plan. If the majority of private wireless users move from
the 800 MHz band to free spectrum at 900 MHz, they would not need to lease
spectrum from band managers.

“The particular element of the consensus plan that we don't favor is the
allocation of the 900 MHz band,” said Crosby, former longtime president of ITA.
“The FCC would be giving it away for free whether users need it or not. We can fix
the problem without all of the spectrum swaps.”

Indeed, few private-wireless licensees are experiencing interference but have been
willing to relocate since Nextel upped its relocation price tag from $500 to $850
million, of which $150 million will pay for private wireless relocation.

Likewise, SouthernLINC, which operates the same iDEN system on the same
frequencies as Nextel, opposes the consensus plan on the grounds that moving
Nextel to new spectrum would diminish the value of frequencies held by non-Nextel
licensees in the 700 and 800 MHz bands. By splitting the 800 MHz band,
SouthernLINC and others would remain in the bands designated for public safety,
restraining the use of their systems.

“We're not having the same problems as Nextel,” said Michael Rosenthal, director
of regulatory affairs with SouthernLINC. “We're not causing any interference to
anyone. We have signed on to the balanced approach, and we have stressed to Nextel
and the commission that the consensus plan suffers from lack of competitive
symmetry.”

Nextel, APCO and others are convinced the interference problem is severe,
wide-spread and will worsen as commercial radio systems evolve, while opponents
cite APCO's own database that indicates just 1 percent of public-safety operators
have reported interference problems.

Consensus plan proponents say that statistics have been taken out of context and
never intended to constitute a valid sampling of interference problems.

Still, Brian Fontes, senior vice president of regulatory affairs with Cingular
Wireless, asks: “Where are these complaints at the FCC? Where is the interference
problems posted on the FCC's Web site? What really is the level of interference? …
Nextel's own proposal admits that it has to go back and mitigate interference once
rebanding has taken place.”

The balanced approach provides case-by-case reactive work and advocates technical
solutions such as those offered by Motorola, which has told the FCC that advances
in receiver technology and increased signal strength for public-safety systems
could successfully resolve many of the interference problems.

Consensus advocates say best practices and Motorola's technical fixes are only
part of the solution.

“Best practices is not a new concept, and it has been determined that it is not an
adequate solution,” said ITA's Smith. “Public safety has been working on this
already for some time.”

SouthernLINC's Rosenthal and other supporters of the balanced approach say
best-practice solutions will work when they are legally required.

“Best practices to date have been optional,” said Rosenthal. “If made mandatory,
they would have a better chance of working … Best practices combined with new
software creates a comprehensive solution that is proactive in areas where public
safety is having problems.”

Another major issue the FCC will have to contend with is reimbursement.

While Nextel has agreed to fund up to $850 million to relocate incumbents in the
800 MHz band, critics say the Nextel proposal does not sufficiently assure that
public-safety agencies will be reimbursed for relocation costs.

Given the impossibility of estimating costs, the cap Nextel is placing on
relocation is unacceptable.

Likewise, the balanced approach proposal does not give any indication of what
costs are involved or who might be responsible for software upgrade costs.

Those working closely with the FCC on the interference issue say the commission is
far from reaching a decision.

And the commission is likely to shelve Nextel's request for free spectrum at 1.9
GHz, the most controversial aspects of the consensus plan. Not only would Nextel
receive precious spectrum in the 1.9 GHz band, but it would also have contiguous
spectrum in the 800 MHz band instead of being split among the 700, 800 and 900 MHz
bands.

CTIA, which finds Nextel's request extremely problematic, recently told the FCC
that Nextel's 10-megahertz spectrum grab is valued between $4.5 million and $5.3
million based on recent and proposed commercial transactions in the 1.9 GHz band.

 http://iwce-mrt.com/ar/radio_nextel_interference_debate/index.htm

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

---

From: sparkie_rf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 03:01:36 -0000

> Nextel interference debate rages on

This is an open and closed case.

If Dawson and his boyz at SouthernLINC can operate w/o causing 
endless intermittent interference problems, then its pretty clear 
that this interference situation is nothing more than part of an 
elaborate fraud against the FCC, america's heros (cops, fire, public 
safety), etc. and all honest and hardworking taxpayers.

This is the most insidious of all frauds, because the guilty are 
blatantly attempting to profit from their misdeeds.

If, and this is a mighty big if, the FCC had an ounce of dignity 
they would prosecute Nextel, the corporation, and all of its major 
officers.

Lets put a fork in Nextel. Which is really nothing more that an 
organized criminal enterprise masquarding as a wireless business!!!

Shoot all the bastards. Justice requires it.

PS. Lets not forget that Nextel entry into the "interconnect" 
business was dubious at best, and criminal at worst. But if you hire 
your accomplices to sit on your board, well that just makes it ok.

---

From: "Steve S. Bosshard \(NU5D\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 23:08:54 -0500

Dang Sparkie, be sure and let me know if I ever do anything to get you hacked at me.

steve

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: sparkie_rf

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:10:16 -0400

I have been pounding the table on this issue for years. When I ask the "Scam Planners"
If Soco can run a "Clean" system why can't Nextel? They normally revert to the "Hi-Lo" site defense (Which is BS) or
say Nextel is not breaking any laws and as a last resort they use the OOBE defense. When asked for some evidence
everyone makes like "Casper The Not So Friendly Ghost" and disappears or defers to their counter part.
We use to play this game in High School its called Hit & Run!

Their technical gurus wonder just like I why motorola's "iDEN" Engineers have not stepped up to help. When I speak to
the iDEN guys they just laugh at their Moto counter parts in the CGISS . Officially they have been told to stay out of
it. Privately they reiterate that Nextel has not followed their design guidelines for years and that is the primary
cause of their problems. Has anyone asked about Nextel's design?  Nope!

The Gurus are just left to muddle through this situation spending endless hours wondering how to correct the problem.
Their only solution is "Re-band" so where is the "Proof" that this will work? In their minds! Nextel feeds the the
"So-called answer and the bite like a  fleas on a dog. Its RUFF!

---

From: sparkie_rf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:53:07 -0000

What? 

Can't a guy go hyperbolic every once in awhile?

Admit it, just once it would be nice to revive "Old West" justice 
and deal with an issue once and for all.

Anyway, not to worry, I don't own any guns. 

But the post was cathartic.