Subject: Re: [NEXTEL-1] RE: 800 MHz interference -

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:24:48 EST

I'd certainly be interested in your answers to the following questions:

1.  If the reduction of interference from an iDEN system is as easy as the 
steps that you have layed out below (I don't mean financially easy, but 
technologically easy), why has that not been the position taken by the cellular 
carriers at the FCC?  It would seem a natural for them.  I don't mean the vague 
"Balanced Plan", but rather the specific technological items you've listed here.

2.  If the Pericle Report is "garbage", why has that not been AT&T's position 
before the FCC?

3.  I don't have significant amounts of information about how APCO works 
internally, but with regard to your allegations about the City of Denver's receipt 
of PFSA money, etc. and that therefore Denver's support was "bought", please 
identify how this money, etc. got into the hands of Electronics Engineering 
Bureau head Steve Browne, and Chief Steve Cooper (since they were the ones who 
had been making decisions regarding Denver's support).

Finally, since the engineers and many of the APCO officials involved were 
present at IWCE and discussed many of these questions (particularly the technical 
ones), it is certainly a shame that you chose not to attend.  However, I 
would be happy to arrange a personal meeting for you with Steve Browne, Chief 
Cooper and Jay Jacobsmeyer, and you may then make your own analysis after having 
all of your questions answered by the relevant people (as far as APCO goes, 
I'll leave that to others to arrange).  I would certainly relish your making 
these same allegations to their faces.

Alan Tilles

In a message dated 4/2/2004 6:02:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:
I don't know what happened to your original  text colors and background it 
was very hard to read. 
Anyway see my comments below- 
"Buchanan, David" wrote: 
  
       Marcel - It is “bashing” and its not professional.This email added to 
it. 
  
  Once again we have a difference of opinion, rather than debate what 
"Bashing" is lets just agree to 
  disagree. (BTW- If I was "Bashing" you would know it) 
  
       So everyone can get the complete story on the foundation that you want 
to paint as sinister, I’m 
  going to respond. 
  
                           A while back ALL the cellular companies were 
basically stonewalling the 
  FCC over implementing phase I and II wireless 9-1-1 location 
technology.When the Commission 
  finally got serious about enforcing the deadlines the evil Nextel proposed 
as part of their remedies 
  donating money to public safety PSAP’s for the purpose of implementing the 
PSAP equipment and 
  startup of the location information. 
  
       The commission did not choose to impose the requirement of donating 
money on Nextel.But 
  being the evil company they are, Nextel went ahead and donated money.I didn’
t look up the 
  amount but your figure of 25 million seems correct.To legally funnel the 
money and provide a 
  method to get proposals for grants, APCO set up a Foundation for Nextel to 
donate to.The board 
  of the foundation or at least the committee that makes selections includes 
representatives of other public 
  safety organizations and APCO.So what happens is the money comes in and 
then is given out to 
  PSAP’s around the nation.Go follow the money trail it is not a secret. 

  Hold on let's get it straight……….. 
  In documents filed with the FCC Nextel said: 
  "Upon Commission's grant of a waiver (or other relief) to implement the 
deployment schedule provided 
  herein to accompany its Phase II ALI deployment schedule with a commitment 
of $25 Million to be 
  used by the public safety community over the next two years for the purpose 
of upgrading their PSAP 
  facilities to accept location information ." 

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6512058872 
  This translates to they will ONLY donate the money IF they got the E-911 
Wavier. 
  Pretty slick huh? Apply pressure to the FCC by holding $25 Million over the 
head of  poor PSAP's based on 
  if Nextel got their wavier. 
One interesting note  is that some of the "SCAM PLAN" supporters ended up 
with the PSFA money. 
Denver one the biggest "SCAM PLAN" supporters ended up with $150,000.00 from 
PSFA and $75,000.00 in Nextel cellphones and service (Non-PSFA). 
  
  =================================================================== 
APCO's role- 
  
  Feb. 6, 2002 
  "Nextel offered the money to APCO over a year ago during their request 
  for a Phase II waiver. APCO declined the offer of money 
  at the time. APCO says they were torn between some 
  validity of Nextel's arguments that it couldn't meet the Oct. 
  1 Phase II milestone, and lots of "unanswered questions." 
  When APCO wrote comments to the FCC about Nextel's 
  waiver, they focused on the technical merits of the 
  proposal, the group says. APCO noted that their 
  comments, "neither fully supported nor vigorously opposed 
  the [Nextel waiver] request." 
  After the FCC granted Nextel's waiver request last fall, 
  APCO reconsidered taking the donation on behalf of 
  "public safety," and has now tentatively decided to become 
  the administrator of the funds. 
  http://www.911dispatch.com/information/nextel/apco_foundation.html 
  =============================================================== 
       This foundation is totally separate from anyone in APCO making 
recommendations or decisions. 
  
  Excuse me - 
  
  The APCO Board of Officers will serve as the Board of Directors for the 
Foundation.  A Foundation Advisory 
  Committee, consisting of the following member organizations, shall be 
responsible for reviewing all applications 
  and recommending approval of grants. 
  Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, International (APCO) 
   http://www.psfa.us/documents/Pre-App1R122303.doc 
  
  If the APCO Board of Officers serve as the Board of Directors for the 
Foundation and APCO is on the 
  Foundation Advisory Committee which gives away the money how can you 
say...... 
  
  "This foundation is totally separate from anyone in APCO making 
recommendations or 
  decisions". 
  
  How does that work? 
       I will repeat - myself and the others on my committee have not 
received a dime from Nextel. 
  
  For the record can you state which committee you are referring to. 

       We base our decisions on what we think is best for public safety as a 
whole.I have no 
  problem if you think we are stupid or wrong headed because we don’t agree 
with your opinion on this 
  issue but don’t imply we are crooks. 
  
  I never said you were stupid. You have things "twisted" it was not I who 
implied you guys are crooks 
  remember? You first took offense to Jason's email. 

  I simply posted: 
  
  An APCO member confirmed to me privately that all 
  the Nextel money is routed through the THE PUBLIC 
  SAFETY FOUNDATION INC.  LARRY D MARSH 
  ([email-masked],  386- 323-9258 v) is a tax 
  attorney who is with Cobb & Cole ( he said down the road from APCO). He 
  suggested looking at previous tax returns prior to the 
  formation of THE PUBLIC SAFETY FOUNDATION 
  INC to follow the money trial. 
  
  You just confirmed that the Nextel money is routed through the THE PUBLIC 
  SAFETY FOUNDATION INC.  Correct? 

       Something you keep leaving out in your discussions on this issue is 
the A band cellular 
  interference.That is not a result of the evil Nextel.Those companies have 
not brought 
  anything constructive to the debate. 

  How many documented cases of A band cellular interference are there? 
  Not many........ I was solving A band interference is back in 1995 for the 
Olympics and they were 
  minimal. 

       As to this question of iDEN expertise being a prerequisite to 
determining a solution, that a 
  smokescreen and you know it. 

  No, it is not a smokescreen....... you guys should be looking at the layer 
3 messaging  and  other indicates instead of spend so  much time chasing 
external OOBE. 
I  asked who has iDEN experience on your team. If your Cadillac breaks  do 
you take it to the Hyundai dealer? 
 Even Nextel  said they had techniques to eliminate interference (WITHOUT 
REBANDING) that are some of same ones I have  spoken to: 
  Fleetcall (Nextel) waiver petition: 
  "As demonstrated above, ESMR service can be implemented without 
interference to existing SMR stations (or 
  other 851-869 MHz stations). Furthermore, very conservative assumptions 
were used in the analysis above 
  providing an extra interference buffer to existing stations and proposed 
ESMR stations. It is therefore believed 
  that any actual interference in the six congested markets from ESMR service 
will be limited to isolated cases. 
  Because of the flexibility of the ESMR service, such isolated cases of 
interference can be resolved by 
  utilizing a number of different techniques at the ESMR base station 
including 
  changing frequencies, reducing power or height, re-orienting or changing 
  directional antennas , or employing electrical or mechanical beam tilt." 
 Found by:  --zawada 
  http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/message/16454 
  
  No one has mentioned Motorola's iDEN  interference management tools in S.R. 
11 which uses  power 
  control and numerous other techniques to manage interference. To Reduce 
Co-channel / Adjacent 
  Interference the duty cycle for some of the BR’s is decreased, therefore 
reducing the amount of interference.  In 
  the Power Reduction Process the selection of UCH slots for attenuation is 
performed by the BR. 25-30% Power 
  Reduction can be achieved. On the Quad BR there will not be separate spikes 
for each active carrier.  Instead, 
  there will be a single carrier feed through spike at the center frequency. 
When the power reduction mode is 
  enabled, the modulated power is decreased for UCH time slots on non-PCCH 
carriers. A carrier with SCCH 
  enabled will follow the same dekeying procedure as the non-PCCH carriers. 
The ACG will monitor for periods of 
  PCH inactivity and these idle periods will be used as opportunities for 
power reductions. When the ACG 
  recognizes a long interval of channel inactivity (both Inbound and 
Outbound), the PCH is reduced to its seed 
  channel on the next DCAP frame boundary.  This is not a "smokescreen" this 
is a patented technique designed 
  by Motorola and used by iDEN Engineers. I also posted several acedemic 
documents that specifically speak to iDEN interference resolution techniques. 
       The problem is basic physics.There are two mechanisms OOBE 
interference (you asked 
  what % - about 50% of cases), 
  
  Can you provide the supporting documentation please. 
  
  the interfering cellular companies can use combiners that better filter but 
in the case of interleaved 
  channels there still needs to be 150 kHz separation of public safety and 
the cellular channels to insure no 
  interference in the real world. 
  Not true- Some iDEN carriers have less than 150Khz of seperation. 
       That separation is very hard to get in the real world of interleaved 
channels. By the way, the iDEN 
  transmitters OOBE specs are much better than FCC requirements. 
  
       The other interference mechanism is inter-modulation products 
generated in the front end of the 
  portable receivers.With multiple carriers at high signal level the receiver 
is non-linear and produces 
  mix products described by well known formulas (2A+B etc.).These products 
can and do end up 
  being the same as the desired signal (on-channel).Fixes for this type of 
interference range from 
  easy to very difficult.Since you are good at finding things look up the 
latest filing from Denver and 
  see what the AT&T engineers say. None of this requires a Phd in iDEN 
technologies for 
  understand the options for correcting. 
You are working on the wrong end! The focus should be on the EBTS and the 
optimization process! 
I read the AT&T report a while ago as well as the Pericle Report. The Pericle 
Report 6\10\03  is GARBAGE! 
They use a Discontinued / Outdated Grayson  receiver which origin dates back 
to before 1998. All they could plot  GPS and RSSI. The true useful data was 
stripped out. There outdated equipment not specifically designed to  examine the 
layer 3 messaging of iDEN furthermore they failed to identify key 
characteristics of iDEN in the report. 
       The last piece of the equation is regulatory - all parties cellular 
and public safety are operating 
  totally within the parameters of their FCC license, which leads to all the 
messy issues with the FCC. 
  
  Public Safety will be looking for a REAL solution years from now when this 
mess collapses. 
(Think I'm wrong look at my 1999 Nextwave predictions.) 
  
       We can rant about that or deal with reality in this imperfect world. 
 Marcel - you will get the last word on this as I don’t have any more time 
nor any more desire to answer 
and inform the dwindling number of folks listening to you,.<<<<- David- this 
is not professional 
  I know you have to save the world ....Yada, Yada, Yada.  
.........Drive-By-Hit-And-Run Answers. 
  That seems to be the common excuse among your group every time things get 
HOT. 
  
dwindling number of folks listening to you ?????? 
  I beg to differ.......- 
I took a look at the membership subscription numbers and since we have 
started our 
recent dialog membership has increased.... contrary to what you say. 

  3/30/2004 1:47 pm 
  ******* <***********> 
  Subscription requested via web 
  3/30/2004 1:51 pm 
  ******* <***********> 
  Subscription requested via web 
  3/31/2004 8:16 am 
  ******* <***********> 
  Subscription requested via web 
  3/31/2004 10:36 am 
  ******* <***********> 
  Subscription requested via web 
  3/31/2004 11:17 am 
  ******* <***********> 
  Subscription requested via web 
  3/31/2004 3:31 pm 
  ******* <***********> 
  Subscription requested via web 
  3/31/2004 8:26 pm 
  ******* <***********> 
  Subscription requested via web 
  3/31/2004 9:40 pm 
  ******* <***********> 
  Subscription requested via web 
  3/31/2004 11:47 pm 
  ******* <***********> 
  Subscription requested via web 
  4/1/2004 2:53 am 
  ******* <***********> 
  Subscription requested via web 
  See ya soon! 
  Cheers 
  Marcel 

  

-- 
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address

---

From: Marcelrf <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 12:40:42 -0400

Ah, so you want me make like Radio Shack ....."You've Got Questions
We've Got Answers?"

I will be glad to answer these questions as soon as you answer a few of
mine starting with (But not limited to ) the ones I have posed to you in
the last 30 days in previous messages that you love to dodge.

-- 
    "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/