Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Nextel's Excesses

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:30:36 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
From: Robert Schwaninger <[email-masked]>
Subject: Nextel's Excesses

Smokey:  In further response to your question there is the "legal" answer
and the practical answer.  The legal answer is that Nextel, like all
licensees, is to be held to the parameters of their authority that appears
on their licenses.  This would include, for site based systems, height, ERP,
etc., just like any other licensee.  For geographic licensing obtained via
auction, there is no specific ERP articulated on the license.  Rather, the
amount of power employed is limited to the contours of the system and
whether those contours exceed either the geographic area stated on the
license (assuming that an adjacent geographic area's cochannel licensee is
not Nextel) or if their system imposes signal into the service area of a
protected site based incumbent licensee's system.
 
The practical answer is that the FCC is about as likely to fine Nextel for
overpowered operations as it is likely to say, "just kidding about that
whole auction thing.  Who wants their money back?"  Alan is right that
Nextel has been somewhat responsive to correcting problems of cochannel
interference due to errant channelization, however, my experience is that
Nextel is somewhat less responsive to issues relevant to the amount of ERP
that a particular facility is producing.  
 
Returning only momentarily to the "legal" answer, I add, if Nextel was truly
held to the parameters of its authority granted under its licenses, then the
whole rebanding thing would be mooted.  After all, the interference is
caused in most cases by out-of-band emissions which are, necessarily,
unauthorized transmissions.  And you see the fine job of enforcement the FCC
has done with these cases.
 
Robert

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