Subject: Re: [NEXTEL-1] Nextel Conference call- Bubbling, Mumbling Barry West On The...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 09:44:26 EDT

In a message dated 10/18/2003 11:03:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:
Alan: could you explain Barry's comment re exchanging the Upper 200 Channels 
for the 1.9 GHz spectrum?

P. Waugh 
Sure.  When you respond to what I asked the other day, and copied below:

In a message dated 10/11/2003 1:12:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:
Perhaps if you are trying to reach a compromise, you and the other members 
of the Consensus parties would be willing to meet and discuss possible 
solutions with all of the major affected parties. Having spent $32 million to 
purchase licenses covering 29 million Pops which encompass the right to offer 
digital cellular service, I feel certain that Preferred Communication 
Systems, Inc. 
has earned that right. You and others apparently do not agree. So much for 
compromise. 
Excuse me, but I have never, ever, ever been asked for a meeting on the 
Consensus proposal by anyone and said no, regardless of whether I think that paying 
money "earned" anybody anything, as my clients take the exact opposite 
position.  That would include several meetings with UTC, several meetings with 
cellular folks, and a number of meetings and telephone calls with Southern.  
Perhaps you might wish to correct your statement.

Alan Tilles

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:27:49 EDT

Alan: I do not believe that as far as this proceeding goes, Preferred 
Communication Systems, Inc. or I have done, said, or omitted to do or say anything 
for which either of us need to apologize. Based upon what I have been told by 
several parties, I feel certain that is not the case with respect to certain 
members of the Consensus Parties or their attorneys and/or consultants. 

P. Waugh

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:32:29 EDT

In a message dated 10/19/2003 10:29:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> for which either of us need to apologize. Based upon what I have been told 
> by several parties, I feel certain that is not the case with respect to 
> certain members of the Consensus Parties or their attorneys and/or consultants. 
> 
> P. Waugh 
> 

Well, I have no clue what this post said.  As a former attorney, you have 
bested me in attorney-speak.  You claimed in the previous post that I had refused 
a request for a meeting with Preferred, and I said that I had never been 
asked for any such meeting.  If you cannot answer, in plain English, whether your 
statement was accurate or not, then we'll just end it here, and you can get 
your answers to your questions elsewhere.

Alan Tilles