Subject: Re: [NEXTEL-1] The "Plan Scam" changes names again-"Public Safet y ...]

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 18:32:35 -0500

------- Original Message --------
   From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PWF] Re: [NEXTEL-1] The "Plan Scam" changes names again-"Public Safet y ...

Actually, Bob, and I'm not totally sure how much detail that I want to share concerning
opposing arguments to the comments that I made in our original filing (i.e., what is
interference and responsibility for curing interference), but I could easily craft an
argument that, under the FCC current rules, Nextel (and cellular) is NOT causing
interference, BY THE FCC'S DEFINITION.  (Note, that this argument doesn't mean that
there's interference in actuality, only that it's not ACTIONABLE interference).

As an attorney, you know that we don't want to get into a situation where we're battling
for numerous years over the meaning of words, with a real potential of losing.  You
yourself used the words "clearly arguable".  Thus, since its "clearly arguable", you
recognize that its not a black and white issue, but rather shaded with grays.  So,
litigation only harms our clients, and only profits the attorneys (ok, the cellular folks
would love it, too).

That's really one of the major incentives to try to work something out, to prevent that
battle.  And, even more importantly, to craft better interference rules to try to
eliminate interference in the field, and to create rules to deal better with interference
(of all sorts) if/when it does happen.

But, the last part of your comment is indeed an important one.  We have to ensure that
taxpayers (and incumbents) do not bear the expense here.

Alan T.

In a message dated 11/12/2002 9:43:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email-masked] writes:

> Okay, I don't see any problem with reasons 1, 2, 4 and 5, but lets drop
> number 3.  It is clearly arguable that Nextel and others may be violating
> 90.173 and/or 90.403, and possibly other sections of the rules or the
> Communications Act.  However, even if violations exist there does not appear
> to be any resolve to do anything about it. So lets just drop the allegation
> that nobody is violating the rules. Additionally, the allegation appears to
> be totally irrelevant, unless you are trying to develop some convoluted
> justification for rectifying the problems of Nextel and some other
> for-profit companies at the American taxpayers' expense.
>
>
> Bob Speidel
> M/A-COM Private Radio Systems, Inc.
> Manager, Regulatory Policy
> (434) 385-2465