Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Consensus Plan

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:47:16 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
From: "Steve Devine" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Consensus Plan

Alan and Blake

            In addition, the national calling channels ITAC and ICALL
channels that, per FCC Docket 87-112 were designated as National
Interoperability channels,

821/866.0125
821/866.5125
822/867.0125
822/867.5125
823/868.0125

would not be allocated consistently if some regions were left without band
shifting.  This would cause the first public safety designated nationwide
channels to become fragmented from region to region, which would be a
setback for planning.

      The feeling is that even in rural areas, Nextel would rather have
those regions rebanded as well.   Although not amongst the first to be
re-channelized, it is crucial for these channels to be consistent thoughout
the country.

Stephen Devine, Region 24 800 MHz Chairperson

Stephen T. Devine
Patrol Frequency Coordinator
Communications Division
Missouri State Highway Patrol

Office (573) 526-6105
FAX    (573) 526-1112

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Send the freshest Valentine's flowers with a FREE vase from only $29.99!
Shipped direct from the grower with a 7 day freshness guarantee and prices so low you save 30-55% off retail!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_iAw9B/xdlHAA/3jkFAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

-- 
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address 
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email-masked]

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:09:28 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
From: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Consensus Plan

Re: your point number 2.   Appendix F begs the question, "What is
interference?".  You can be sure that everyone will have a different point of
view regarding this definition.  You have your definition, someone else has
theirs and a third party has yet another one.  I believe the term to describe
this situation is a cluster   ....     I will not use the other word, even
though it is now "not against the regulations" (this is different than OK) to do
so on the air.

I would imagine that the public safety folks are going to want to adopt your
definition of interference (any degradation to any receiver is the fault of the
transmitter) while the commercial transmitter owners are going to say my
equipment is not putting out anything on "their" channel, I'm not the owner of
the offending equipment.

If the public safety position gets adopted, everyone is going to regret it. 
Unless the FCC is wanting to step in the "dog pile" of "regulations don't get
applied equally", someone of questionable scruples is going to go around and get
so close to a transmitter that their RF safety monitor is going off and complain
that the public safety transmitters are causing interference to their
operations.   I've seen companies try similar money making schemes "against" the
cellular industry.  Many of them made lots of money doing it.  If I could figure
out how to shave without looking at myself in the mirror, it would be a way of
making some easy money. 

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:16 PM
Subject: Re:  Consensus Plan

Let me answer it this way.

1.  If the money "runs out", and for any reason isn't supplemented, incumbent 
licensees would not be required to move.  Note that, if this were to happen, 
it would most likely be in Wyoming or Montana (i.e. extremely rural areas), 
because it is set up to take place first in areas or greatest interference 
problems and greatest population.

2.  In that "what if" scenario, what we call "Appendix F" would apply.  
Appendix F sets forth specific interference protection rules for licensees (not 
contained in the rules today).  The legal impact would be that the offending 
licensee would be protected, and the offending licensee would need to cure.  The 
practical impact would be that Nextel would have extreme difficulty (if not 
impossibility) operating in the band in that geographic region and providing
that 
level of  required protection.  This, as a result, gives Nextel even more 
incentive to finish the job.  Thus, the answer to your second paragraph is that, 
if funding fails, interference would still be fixed.

Let me add that, while the $850 cap was necessary in the negotiations, as 
Nextel (as a public company) could not agree to an open-ended funding
commitment, 
there is nothing wrong with any licensee in the band from taking the position 
at the FCC that, like the Upper 200 retune, there should not be any cap, the 
costs are the costs (and we have encouraged licensees to individually take 
exactly that position).

3.  The answer is yes to your last paragraph, in that no public safety agency 
(or private licensee, for that matter) would be required to move UNTIL the 
ENTIRE amount of funding for that ENTIRE region's relocation are already 
available, up front, in escrow.

Hope that answers your questions.

Alan S. Tilles, Esquire
Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A.
11921 Rockville Pike, Third Floor
Rockville, Maryland 20852
www.shulmanrogers.com

In a message dated 2/11/2004 12:15:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:
I have been told on another list that the latest incarnation
of the consensus plan says that if there is no longer
any of the 850 million left, no one has to move.

Does this not mean that the interference would not
be fixed then?

Is the following statement true?

In the latest proposal before the FCC, as I understand it, no public safety
system would be required to move unless there was money in a special account
in the bank that would cover the move for all of the public safety systems
in the region.

 
Yahoo! Groups Links