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

From: Marcelrf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 07:57:39 -0500

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 -

  <SNIP>

  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