Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re Co-Channel Interference Protection]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:10:26 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
From: "fasteddie75234" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re Co-Channel Interference Protection

Alan: a few days ago you "yelled" at me re the statement that public 
safety licensees might not receive the ERP, height, etc. at their new 
frequencies that they previously enjoyed.

Our engineers have pointed me to Appendix C-3 of the Supplemental 
Comment filed by the Consensus Parties filed on December 24, 2002 as 
an example of this problem. 

I. B. 3. Quality of Service provides as follows: "In order for a 
replacement system to be comparable, the end user must perceive 
substantially similar quality of service. Replacement 800 MHz or 900 
MHz frequencies provided to an incumbent licensee are deemed to 
provide a comparable quality of service for the purposes of this 
Order if the replacement frequencies meet the following criteria: (1) 
provide at least the same quantity of spectrum; (2) are licenses at 
the same licensed coordinates as incumbent's current license, with 
the same or substantially similar effective radiated power (ERP), 
elevation, antenna height and height above average terrain (HAAT); 
and (3) provide co-channel protection equal to the lesser of: (i) the 
co-channel protection required under FCC Rule Section 90.621; or (ii) 
incumbent licensee's current co-channel protection, if less than 
provided for under Section 90.621 due to consensual short-spacing, 
failure to gain exclusivity through adequate loading, or other 
historic factors. Public safety licensees relocated from the New 
NPSPAC Block and the Guard Band to channels 321-400 within the Non-
Cellular Block shall only be entitled to the co-channel interfernec 
granted under Section 90.621."   

According to Alex Calderon, President,Concepts to Operations, Inc., 
our Rf engineering consulting firm, this last reference is apparently 
intended to deal with APCO's granting some public safety licensees 
greater co-channel protections than required by Part 90 Rules. The 
Consensus Parties' proposal would do away with this additional co-
channel protection.

P. Waugh

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