Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: Nextel hits the Portals

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:29:54 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
From: Jack Daniel <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Nextel hits the Portals

Unbelievable.... literally!

IMHO, when a consultant hired by Nextel starts citing another consultant
hired by Nextel as a collaborative source, how can anyone trust the
validity of any conclusions this kind of report presents. One glaring
example in this report is when Lopiros cites Luntz. 

If one drills down deeper they may find most of the root source of
information used by these "consultants" and references comes from the
same source.

It's like placing an ad in the newspaper then spinning that into "as
seen in the national news" as evidence there is widespread demand for
the product. 

Spreadsheet programs, like Excel, call this a 'circular reference' and
reject it as invalid. Unfortunately, humans are not programmed the same
way. ;-)

It seems to me the whole 800 Interference proceeding is being
manipulated like the legal defense team does to the jury in a criminal
case; 

Hired "Expert witnesses" (consultants) that naturally only give
favorable testimony (reports/white papers), minimizing their clients
part in the crime (we aren't the only problem) , shifting blame to
others (the other cellular carriers), defamation and intimidation of
opposing witnesses and experts, getting the client to settle 'out of
court' (i.e. endorse the settlement), seek out judges that will rule
favorably (those at the FCC that place 'competition' above public safety
necessity) , and influence the jury with promises of repentance (it
won't be a problem after the retune) and restitution ($700 million). 

But in this 'case', the number of victims grows during the trial
process. 
No 'stay' order has been given or even suggested.

On 9-12-00, the U.S. Congress should have ordered the FCC to make all
for-profit wireless services 'secondary' services to public safety for
the duration of the WAR we are now engaged in. 

That would simply mean the cellular and SMR service providers must
correct any interference to public safety, at THEIR expense, to the
reasonable satisfaction of the public safety agency receiving the
interference -or- cease operation at that cell site.

Simple, effective, rapid results and lower cost than any other proposal
presented.

AFTER that step, everyone would have time to develop mutually equitable
solutions over the last several years.

Instead Nextel and other have created even more dangerous conditions for
our first responders by unrestrained construction of thousands of new,
interfering sites.  

This activity also makes any estimate of cost or time to implement the
consensus plan inherently too little too late.

If Congress could get their priorities right, they could STILL make this
order and at least stop the problem from growing and maybe save some
lives in the process. 

But I may be wrong........
Jack Daniel
==============================================

------------------------ 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 16:00:00 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
From: Jack Daniel <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Nextel hits the Portals 

Eric, while we are in agreement that we all need better receivers, your
'dawn of time' example is not applicable to the specific issue of 800
interference to public safety communications. It's a big difference when
you intentionally get FCC waivers that allows you to bypass existing
interference controls. 

And yes, I did have a galena and cat whisker receiver. At least you
can't say receiver front ends have come a long way, ha ha. 

I also briefly operated a spark gap transmitter, but it wasn't
intentional. It was 2 KV plate coils arcing on AM modulation peaks.

There were War Acts during WWII also that limited non-essential
communications activities.

FYI, The 800 band segment we are discussing was originally set aside for
non-carrier comnunications by the way. And public safety continues to
have no other place to go to with equal capabilities. 700 Mhz is not
available in most areas and when it was allocated it use was already
defined years before. Public safety still needs more spectrum than the
consensus plan provides to get to true interoperability. (Alan T. may
argue with that statement!)

Many lower spec receivers were in use without any major problems when
Nextel changed their system architecture and made what was rare
intererence incidents into a contenious, city wide disaster.  There are
newer and better receivers now but the industry can't develop and
deliver new designs as fast as Nextel can build more offending sites.

I do agree 100% with your last statement;

" Wartime is when innovation and the desire to use the best should be at
its greatest.  It should not be a time when we want to keep to the same
old thing that we know isn't working.  I think it is a crime to tell the
first responders---"Yes, we know we can do better, but we don't want
to.""

But I may be wrong........
Jack Daniel
========================================

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> I'm glad that this attitude is rare, otherwise we would still be in
> the spark transmitter/crystal radio days of radio.
> 
> Way back when...when the second radio transmitter came on line...."
> Mr. Daniel.  You KNEW the environment when you decided to put your
> transmitter on line.  You KNEW that we used a galena crystal with a
> 500 foot wire connected to it for a receiver.  You KNEW that my
> receiver would receive anything between 10,000 and 0.5 meters.  You
> KNEW all this and decided to place your transmitter on the air
> anyway.  Now turn it off!"
> 
> This did happen, apparently for the above reason, during WWI, but the
> average person didn't use radio communications then, so there wasn't
> much of an outcry.
> 
> Not that it was your transmitter.  I just used your name as an
> example, I don't *think* you were around then! :-) Anyway, I read
> about this WWI stuff from my QST CD-ROM collection... I wasn't around
> either.
> 
> Fast forward from 1917 to now......I think all of the folks driving
> their 4WD SUVs around town would go nuts and jump down the politicians
> throats if they couldn't drive with one hand on their cell phone.
> 
> As for knowing the RF environment....why are public safety agencies
> still moving to 800MHz now, when they too know the environment?  Why
> did the agency buy the "pager spec" radios when the environment was
> already known?
> 
> The fastest way to deal with the interference problem caused by poor
> radios would be for the local public safety agency to go back to
> whoever funds them and get a bond or tax, or better yet both, passed
> (a tax provides more than a 1 shot funding).  Most places, if they
> have the political will, can enact such a thing under an emergency
> clause and get the money made available right away.  However quickly
> the new radios could be shipped would be about how long many of the
> problems would take to get fixed.
> 
> If the body that can enact taxes doesn't want to do this, then it
> speaks volumes about what a first responder's life must be worth to
> the politicians and the people they serve.
> 
> If the political types do not have the political will to do this, it
> is most likely because they are more concerned about the reaction of
> the people who will be taxed than they are of terrorism and the lives
> of the first responders.
> 
> If the cell carriers become responsible for the crappy equipment that
> is being forced upon the first responders, it would be interesting for
> the carriers to put the following insert into their customers' bills.
> 
>       Is your cell service getting spotty?  The reason for this is due
>       to XXX government agency not buying good radio equipment for
>       your emergency first responders.  If you wish to discuss this
> issue
>       with the elected officials funding this agency, you may call the
> special
>       number, *GRIPE.  This call is free.  If you want good cell
> service and
>       your public safety organizations to have the best equipment
> available,
>       please take advantage of this opportunity to contact your
> elected
>       representatives on this issue.  By doing so, you will keep your
> cell
>       service and get the best equipment to the first responders who
> are there
>       when you need them the most.
> It probably wouldn't take too many people griping about poor cell
> coverage to make the politicians back down from just about shutting
> down the cell phone systems.
> 
> In reality, maybe that is what needs to happen.  Politicians sometimes
> need to make tough decisions and so far all they are doing is ducking
> and running.
> 
> Here is why I think keeping "my headache" receivers is bad.  When
> these cruddy receivers are receiving their desired RF at about -95dBm,
> they fail whenever the composite RF anywhere between 835 and 885MHz
> exceeds about -50dBm.  It only takes one signal exceeding this level
> anywhere in this frequency range, along with the ambient RF in the
> -80dBm range to jam this receiver.  If I fire up a 3 watt bag phone
> within a couple of hundred feet of one of these "headache radios", I
> can "kill" them.  Yesterday I bought one of these bag phones at a
> garage sale for 25 cents.  If I jump two pins on a connector, I can
> put the phone into a manual mode and make the transmitter transmit at
> full power even if there is no cell service.   I would think most
> criminals/terrorists would be happy to spend 25 cents to be able to
> jam many police radios in a difficult to quickly find and untraceable
> to them manner.
> 
> Wartime is when innovation and the desire to use the best should be at
> its greatest.  It should not be a time when we want to keep to the
> same old thing that we know isn't working.  I think it is a crime to
> tell the first responders---"Yes, we know we can do better, but we
> don't want to."
> 
> Just another of my many opinions......
> 
> Eric