Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Frequently Asked Questions on the 800 MHz Consensus Plan

From: Marcelrf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 03:11:19 -0500

Frequently Asked Questions on the 800 MHz Consensus Plan

1.Would the funding for Public Safety be guaranteed under the Consensus
Plan?  2.Would the Consensus Plan cover all the costs that might be
incurred by Public Safety entities to remedy interference?
3.What happens when there is a disagreement regarding any of the
elements involved in relocating public safety?
4.Would the Consensus Plan pay for the replacement of all handsets for
Public Safety?
5.What would happen if the public safety relocation costs exceed $700
million?
6.Would the Consensus Plan funds pay for upgrades necessitated by
rebanding?
7.When would Public Safety get the funding?
8.How many years would it take to implement the Consensus Plan?
9.How much control would Public Safety have over the relocation fund?
10.Have Public Safety entities raised any concerns about the Consensus
Plan?
11.Would the Consensus Plan address all forms of interference?
12.Would relocation prevent future interference problems?
13.Would your state/city/municipality rules and regulations allow you to
receive money from a non-public source to pay for the rebanding, and/or
would those rules and regulations allow a Public Safety entity to
obligate a municipality to abide by the Consensus Plan rules?

1. Would the funding for Public Safety be guaranteed under the
Consensus Plan?

No. Nextel's pledge would be capped at $850 million for relocation, $700
million of which would be
for Public Safety.1 In addition, the funding would be contingent on
Nextel receiving 10 MHz of
spectrum, located at 1.9 GHz, from the FCC.2
Ç TOP È

2. Would the Consensus Plan cover all the costs that might be incurred
by Public Safety entities to remedy interference?
No. The Consensus Plan offers to reimburse only for "direct expenses."3
While not defined in the
document, the use of "direct expenses" obviously precludes reimbursing
Public Safety for any
indirect expenses they may incur. The amount of relocation expenses that
would be reimbursed
would be subject to mandatory negotiations with Nextel and ultimate
approval by the Relocation
Coordination Committee.4 The Consensus Plan has anticipated that there
may be disagreements
regarding reimbursement, and therefore has established an arbitration
process for addressing cost
issues.

Further, Nextel's financial commitment is limited. "Nextel will fund the
required relocation of 800
MHz incumbent licensees pursuant to the Consensus Plan up to a total of
$700 million dedicated
for Public Safety licenses."6 The Consensus Parties have left little
margin for error. Over $698
million of the $700 million intended for the Public Safety realignment
already is accounted for in the
cost estimate.

3. What happens when there is a disagreement regarding any of the
elements involved in relocating public safety?

Resolution of the disagreements would be subject to arbitration, as
stated above, and if a relocation
agreement cannot be reached, Public Safety licensees may be forced to
relocate, have their
licenses cancelled, or be relegated to secondary status.8

4. Would the Consensus Plan pay for the replacement of all handsets for
Public Safety?

No. The Consensus Plan estimates that only "approximately 1% of the
public safety radios will have
to be replaced," but the Consensus Parties are concerned whether this
estimate is accurate.9
According to the calculations included in the Consensus Plan, relocation
costs would increase by
$78 million (more than 10 % of the total Nextel Public Safety
Commitment) for each additional 1% of
public safety radios that need to be replaced.10

5. What would happen if the public safety relocation costs exceed $700
million?

Relocation would stop, unless additional funding is secured, as Nextel
has offered no assurances that any additional funds would be made
available should its $700 million offer prove inadequate to complete
rebanding Public Safety nationwide.11 This would leave some NPSPAC
regions on the existing allocation while other NPSPAC regions are on the
"new" allocations, which would impact nationwide interoperability on the
NPSPAC channels. Nextel, having moved in some areas and not in others,
would be spread even further throughout the 800 MHz band nationwide.

6. Would the Consensus Plan funds pay for upgrades necessitated by
rebanding?

No, the Consensus Plan states that incumbent licensees will be entitled
only to "comparable
facilities" in terms of system, capacity, quality of service, and
operating costs.12 The replacement
system would not be tested for "comparability" before a licensee is
required to vacate its old
frequencies."

7. When would Public Safety get the funding?

This is uncertain. For at least a portion of the funds, the Consensus
Plan details reimbursement rules.14 According to the "Consensus Plan,"
Public Safety must submit the "actual costs of retuning," suggesting
that they would be reimbursed after all bills are submitted.15 There is
no guarantee that all reimbursement claims would be honored.16 Final
decisions concerning approved reimbursements would be made by a
five-member committee, of which two members would be public safety
representatives. Even if all expenses are ultimately reimbursed, the
Consensus Plan prescribes no timetable for when these payments would
occur.

8. How many years would it take to implement the Consensus Plan?

At least 3 years, six months after FCC action.17 Physical retuning of
many Public Safety licensees will not be complete until at least 2007,
even if everything runs smoothly.

9. How much control would Public Safety have over the relocation fund?
None. The Relocation Fund will be managed by an independent fund
administrator. The
administrator chosen must be "acceptable to Nextel," and subject to
"reasonable" public safety
consent.

10. Have Public Safety entities raised any concerns about
the Consensus Plan?

Yes. In fact, Public Safety licensees have raised a variety of concerns
about elements of the
Consensus Plan, including cost estimates,19 reimbursement concerns,20
interference protection,21
uninterrupted communications,22 and whether realignment is necessary.

11. Would the Consensus Plan address all forms of interference?

No. Only some of the interference will be addressed. "The Consensus
Parties recognize, however,
that no band plan can eliminate entirely all possibility of interference
under all circumstances."24
To address the remaining interference, after completion of all
rebanding, the Consensus Plan
contemplates adoption of rules and best practices to address this.

12. Would relocation prevent future interference problems?

No. Intermodulation will be slightly improved and out-of-band-emissions
("OOBE") will be improved
to the extent that public safety is no longer interleaved with low-site,
low-power operations. Receiver
overload, however, will not be improved at all.26

13. Would your state/city/municipality rules and regulations allow you
to receive money from a non-public source to pay for the rebanding,
and/or would those rules and regulations allow a Public Safety entity to
obligate a municipality to abide by the Consensus Plan rules?

The laws of some locations may not allow public entities to receive
private funding to finance public works, and may not allow Public Safety
agencies to enter into obligations on behalf of their governments
regarding the Consensus Plan rules. The answer to this question will
vary from location to location.

End Notes

1 "Nextel will fund the required relocation of 800 MHz incumbent
licensees pursuant to the Consensus Plan up to a total of $850 million,
of which $700 million is dedicated for public safety licensees and $150
million is dedicated for non-public safety licensees." Supplemental
Comments of Aeronautical Radio Inc., et. al., WT Docket No. 02-55 at 5
(December 24, 2002) ("Consensus Supplemental Comments") [the Consensus
Parties].

2 Nextel is committed to fund "the relocation costs of all 800 MHz
incumbents required to relocate pursuant to the Consensus Plan . . .
provided that the Commission grants Nextel a replacement 10 MHz
nationwide CMRS license at 1910-1915/1990-1995 GHz in the Report and
Order." Consensus Supplemental Comments at 5-6.

3 "Except where noted herein, all direct expenses arising from
relocation shall be paid or reimbursed by the Relocation Fund."
Consensus Supplemental Comments at Appendix C-2, C-31.

4 The RCC would include Nextel and have only minority public safety
representation. Only those expenses determined to be "reasonable" by the
RCC would be reimbursable, and the Consensus Plan provides no
information about how such a determination would be made.

5 Unless prohibited by law, "if an incumbent licensee and Nextel cannot
complete a relocation agreement within the nine-month negotiation
period, either party may initiate binding arbitration of unresolved cost
and timing issues before an arbitration panel established by the
[Relocation Coordination Committee] RCC, which would choose between
relocation proposals submitted by the two parties in a 'baseball-type'
arbitration process." Consensus Supplemental Comments at 21-22.

6 Consensus Supplemental Comments at 5.

7 Consensus Supplemental Comments at Appendix A-8.

8 "The [Consensus] Plan also provides for the Commission to direct an
incumbent that refuses to relocate within six months of its application
grant to relocate within 30 days to its new, licensed replacement
frequencies and to cancel the license." Consensus Supplemental Comments
at 24; "Any incumbent NPSPAC licensee in regions prioritized 1-14 [and
15-55] not executing a relocation agreement within 19 months of the
Report and Order or not vacating its original frequencies within 33
months of the Report and Order would be issued a new license for the
replacement frequencies identified in the applicable Regional Migration
Plan and would be given 30 days to relocate, combined with either (i)
involuntary license cancellation or (ii) modification of its license to
secondary status." Consensus Supplemental Comments at 30, 31.

9 According to the Consensus Parties' own comments, "the Public Safety
Organizations believe that there continues to be uncertainty as to the
number of radios that will need to be replaced as part of the plan,
which could have a significant impact on costs. . . The substantial cost
difference between replacing and reprogramming a radio is such that
small variations in the number of radios to be replaced will have a
significant impact on the total cost of implementing the Consensus
Plan." Consensus Supplemental Comments at 6-7. Nextel estimates that
only 1% of the public safety receivers will need to be replaced.
Consensus Supplemental Comments at Appendix A-4.

10 Consensus Supplemental Comments at Appendix A-12.

11 According to the Consensus Plan filing "no public safety incumbent
will be required to relocate should Nextel's commitment
prove inadequate." Consensus Supplemental Comments at 7. Additionally,
the relocation process will not be completed unless additional funding
is secured, which is not guaranteed.  Supplemental Comments of
Aeronautical Radio, Inc., et. al., WT Docket No. 02-55 at 20 (August 7,
2002)
("Consensus Reply Comments at 20").

12 Consensus Supplemental Comments at Appendix C-4. Other than the
improved combiners mentioned above, the Plan does not offer upgrades.
Cost analyses for retuning are based on existing systems, and reflect
costs incurred in simply retuning those systems as they exist. See
generally, Consensus Supplemental Comments at A- 9, A-13.

13 Consensus Supplemental Comments at Appendix C-2, C-3.

14 The Consensus Plan uses the term "reimburse" throughout its
documents, which implies that for at least a portion of the
expenditures, funding will be obtained upon completion. See, e.g.,
Consensus Supplemental Comments at 21.

15 "To qualify for reimbursement, a public safety entity will . . .
provide the Committee with the actual costs
of retuning, whether performed by the public safety entity itself, a
public safety contractor, or Nextel."
Consensus Reply Comments at 21.

16 According to the Consensus Plan, "all relocation cost reimbursement
claims by licensees pursuant to
any negotiated agreements between the affected parties under this Order
shall be submitted by the
incumbent licensee to the RCC, which shall be responsible for the review
and approval of all relocation
cost reimbursement claims to ensure consistency with the provisions of
this Order. The RCC shall then
approve the reimbursement request and direct the Relocation Fund
Administrator to release the
appropriate funds to the Incumbent Licensee or its designee." Consensus
Supplemental Comments at
Appendix C-5

17 Consensus Supplemental Comments at Appendix D-2. Rebanding the entire
800 MHz band throughout the country is a huge undertaking in which
problems are sure to arise. Therefore, 4 years is an extremely
conservative estimate. Delays in any aspect could have a "domino" effect
due to the interrelated nature of the relocations that would have to
occur in a precise sequence. The Consensus Plan would propose a
two-phase approach to rebanding. Phase-I: All channel 1-120 incumbents
are to relocate to channels 121-400. Prioritization based on the 55
NPSPAC regions, and work for regions 1-14 to be completed first.  Nextel
to occupy channels 1-120. With no disputes or arbitration delays, this
would take up to 33 months (2 years, 9 months). Phase-II: On a
region-by-region basis, all NPSPAC licensees relocate to channels 1-120
by swapping channels with Nextel. Again, regions 1-14 to be completed
first. Nextel to relocate to the vacated NPSPAC spectrum (channels
601-720). Again, with no disputes or arbitration delays, this would take
up to 42 months (3 years and 6 months). See Consensus Supplemental
Comments at 14-33.

18 "The Consensus Parties will establish a Relocation Fund to finance
incumbent retuning costs, funded by Nextel, and managed by an
independent Fund Administrator acceptable to Nextel, and subject to the
reasonable consent of APCO, IACP, IAFC, IMSA, and the Private Wireless
Coalition." Consensus Supplemental Comments at 7.

19 See e.g. Comments of the Michigan Department of Information
Technology, WT Docket No. 02-55 at 3 (February 10, 2003) (Michigan is
concerned that the "funding is inadequate" and that the Consensus Plan
has "overlooked" some costs such as the cost of diverting personnel).

20 See e.g. Comments of the City of Philadelphia, WT Docket No. 02-55 at
1 (February 10, 2003) (The Consensus Plan "does not assure that public
safety agencies will be reimbursed for relocation costs").
21 See e.g. Comment of the City and County of San Diego, WT Docket No.
02-55 at 10 (Feb. 10, 2003) (The "language [of the Consensus Plan] must
be clarified to insure that it in no way absolves CMRS providers from
mitigating harmful interference").

22 See e.g. Comments of State of Hawaii, WT Docket No. 02-55 at 1
(September 20, 2002) ("The relocation of complex communications systems
to new frequencies will inevitably result in interruptions to operations
and unpredictable limits to coverage and use").

23 See e.g. Comment of City of Baltimore, Maryland, WT Docket No. 02-55
at 1 (Feb. 10, 2003) ("the scope
of the interference problem has not been sufficiently investigated, and
the cause has not been accurately enough determined, to justify the
adoption of a remedy as drastic as band realignment").

24 Consensus Supplemental Comments at 39. "The Consensus Plan will
reduce the probability of current CMRS - public safety intermodulation
interference by more than 90 percent for many current NPSPAC licensees,
and by as much as 65 percent for public safety licensees in the
non-cellular block remaining closest to the new cellular channel block."
Consensus Supplemental Comments at Appendix F-1.

25 Under the Consensus Plan, a Public Safety agency cannot rely on these
Best Practices until "completion of the Consensus Plan realignment in a
NPSPAC Region." Consensus Supplemental Comments at Appendix F-1.

26 As discussed in Question 2 above, under the Consensus Plan, only 1%
of public safety's handsets will be replaced – any more than that and
the costs for the plan skyrocket by more than 10 % for each additional
1% of handsets that have to be replaced. Without narrower front-ends,
many of the interference problems will not be remedied.

http://www.fix800mhznow.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.FAQ#Q1

--
    "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

-- 
    "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/