Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: Replacement Frequencies

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:40:38 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
From: "Robert Gurss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Replacement Frequencies

If you're here in Indianapolis for APCO, come to the 800 MHz
Supersession on Tuesday and/or stop by the 800 MHz resource room to get
answers to your questions.  I don't have time to respond in detail, but
the plan does require equivalent replacement frequencies.  Indeed,
that's a fundamental aspect of the plan.  Also, reimbursement need not
be the only method of cost recovery.  In many cases, the principal costs
can be provided through a turn-key arrangement so that the public safety
licensee is not required to put out cash.

Robert M. Gurss
Director of Legal & Government Affairs
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials
1725 DeSales Street, NW,  Suite 808
Washington, DC  20036
(202) 833-3800
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: George Crouch [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: Replacement Frequencies

Unless I missed it, no where in the plan does it provide that
replacement frequencies in the 854 to 861 interleave band will be the be
of equal ERP, height and separation.

------------------------ 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: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:38:52 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
From: "George Crouch" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re: Replacement Frequencies

Unless I missed it, no where in the plan does it provide that
replacement frequencies in the 854 to 861 interleave band will be the be
of equal ERP, height and separation. When I ask the question I was told
that's an FCC issue not a Plan issue. For us in public safety lower
power short spaced replacement frequencies could reduce coverage,
increase receiver overload problems, hurt existing in building coverage 
and require the construction of additional sites to maintain existing
coverage. The cost for additional sites to replace lost coverage is not
specifically listed as a reimbursable expense.

Obviously other public safety systems are not feeling the budget crunch
or do not realize that this is a reimbursement plan. The agency pays for
the retuning and then submits its cost for reimbursement, with no
guarantee of what will be covered, what will be contested and how long
will it take to cut reimburse checks. In SC it will take at least to
full retunes of our entire statewide system and all 20,000 plus radios.
In 3 years it will be closer to 25,000 radios. 

NEXTEL says it plans to use its people and equipment do a lot of the
retune to manage retune cost, including public safety. So the RCC is
paying who back? APCO for frequency coordination and NEXTEL for
retuning? 

For a nationwide plan I am also concerned that the plan is already
including exemptions for cellular type systems to remain in the
interleave band. What happens if the funding runs out, now we have half
the country on one plan and the other half on another plan. Does NEXTEL
begin to re-energize its interleave frequencies again and the nation is
back where we started with interference problems? Of course in SC with
the average cell site 100' plus we are not experiencing the problems
addressed in the Consensus Plan today. 

Did I miss these issues being address, in detail, when I read the plan?
Thanks!