Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: State of New York Office for Technology supports modified Consensus Plan]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:05:36 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
From: "Robert F. Schlieman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:State of New York Office for Technology supports modified Consensus
Plan

Bryan:

Your anecdotal report is very interesting.  I would like to obtain a 
detailed technical report of the existing conditions before the 
corrective measures were employed, and specific details of the 
corrective action taken.  

As a witness to this recent test, I am hoping that you can provide me 
some specifics - e.g. name of County and State, the name of the County's 
technical representative and telephone number, the name and telephone 
number of the Nextel technical representative, frequencies involved, 
date of test, etc.   Please contact me directly if you don't want that 
level of personal information broadcast.

Thanks,

Robert Schlieman
----------------------
[email-masked] wrote:

>	In a recent test of an interference case that I've been a witness
>to, Nextel was using a "post consensus plan" channel alignment along with
>the PS agency. The PS signal levels were above the "consensus plan"
>threshold, and there are still interference problems in this situation.
>	As stated in the email below: "This plan, as modified, now promises
>to "virtually eliminate" interference from cellular mobile radio service
>("CMRS") to public safety by an average of 99 percent for current National
>Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee ("NPSPAC") licensees, and by an
>average of 88 percent for public safety licensees in the non-cellular block
>(809-814/854-859 MHz)"
>	So, I guess this falls under the 88% "virtual" category. 
>	As a matter of fact out of approx. 57 locations to have been
>identified as  interference problems in a particular county caused by
>Nextel, 35 sites were able to be resolved by downtilt, power, and/or freq.
>changes on Nextel's part. Another 14 of them are expected to be resolved
>with purchase of new PS portables with better IMD specs. Leaving 8 locations
>that are not expected to be resolved. That's 8 of 57 locations....14% of the
>locations that are expected not to be resolved. And that is without
>re-banding. So if the Consensus Plan is saying 12% of the interference
>locations can not be resolved with rebanding, then why do it if there are
>ways for the interfering party to resolve interference without rebanding and
>disrupting a major number of licensees with little if any more gain than can
>be realized with other methods?
>
>Bryan
>  
>

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:44:10 -0500

------- Original Message --------
From: "Sean O'Hara" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: State of New York Office for Technology supports modified Consensus
Plan

This does not fix OOBE coupling from CMRS. The proposed solution that the
State supports does.

Sean

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 5:09 PM
Subject: RE:State of New York Office for Technology
supports modified Consensus Plan

(snip)

3. The State is very encouraged to see relaxation of the minimum signal
level thresholds -
which is necessary for reliable operation, and to protect public safety and
private wireless
operators from CMRS interference (2) Furthermore, all licensees operating in
the noncellular
806-816/851-861 MHz band are now protected, not just those outside of the
previously defined 814-816/859-861 MHz "guard band". The proposed plan now
protects public safety licensees by lowering the median (3) desired levels
required for
interference protection to –101 dBm for portable radios and –104 dBm for
mobile radios
in the area of interference (4) The key aspect of these reduced thresholds
is that they will
no longer require public safety systems to be designed on an
interference-limited basis in
order to receive interference protection. This is extremely important to the
State, and has
been reiterated time and again within many of our previous filings.

4. The State supports the relief provided to licensees in the 851-861 MHz
guard band
channels through the removal of the mitigation threshold sliding scale (5)
The proposed
change prohibits CMRS to public safety interference on guard band channels
resulting
from OOBE and intermodulation. The proposed plan will require CMRS to take
the

(snip)
=================================================

Preselector?  Decent front end?  Those are extra cost options that you don't
need to buy.  So, save the $300 per radio and just order the basic model.
You can't lose.  If it turns out you *do* need a preselector and a decent
front end, someone else will buy them for you.

Eric