Subject: [NEXTEL-1] [PWC Supplemental Comments]

From: Marcelrf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:33:55 -0500

> From: Robert Schwaninger <[email-masked]>
> Date: 2002/10/30 Wed AM 08:29:50 EST

> Subject:  PWC Supplemental Comments
> 
> More Hot Ether:
>  
> The letter sent to the FCC on October 29, 2002 stating that the coalition
> will be filing supplemental comments later than originally expected due to
> problems working out issues related to "funding arrangements, border
> regions, timing, logistics, and post-tuning rights" was quite interesting.
> Thank you for the posting, Nick.  However, given the list of things with
> which the coalition is wrestling, I have to wonder what is going on.  The
> coalition filed its comments, then abandoned those comments on reply, and
> now appears poised to abandon their reply comments via amendment, tweaking,
> and continued attempts to figure out how they are going to pay for
> rebanding, not just accept a loose promise of a down payment from Nextel.
>  
> Taking the big issue alone, funding, the effort to force rebanding is quite
> difficult.  The estimated price tag for public safety alone is in the $2
> billion range.  The FCC has no statutory authority to raise the dough and
> distribute it to affected licensees.  The public safety community requires
> guarantees, which the coalition cannot give.  The private commercial systems
> are not in line to pay for their own rebanding, much less public safety, due
> to the impact of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  The cellular operators are
> not part of the coalition and reject paying for anything beyond
> modifications to their own systems.  With the exception of Nextel, none of
> the coalition members have even offered a contribution toward the effort.
> Homeland Security money isn't available at this time and is unlikely to be
> made available.  So, where's the money coming from?  It appears that no one
> knows and no one is willing to be stuck with the entire check.
>  
> Robert Gurss' letter states that figuring all of these issues out will "take
> slightly more time than anticipated."  That statement qualifies Mr. Gurss
> for consideration in the competition for understatement of the year.
>  
> Robert Schwaninger  

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/jd3IAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

More Hot Ether:

The letter sent to the FCC on October 29, 2002 stating
that the coalition will be filing supplemental comments later than originally
expected due to problems working out issues related to "funding
arrangements, border regions, timing, logistics, and post-tuning rights"
was quite interesting.  Thank you for the
posting, Nick.  However, given the list
of things with which the coalition is wrestling, I have to wonder what is going
on.  The coalition filed its comments,
then abandoned those comments on reply, and now appears poised to abandon their
reply comments via amendment, tweaking, and continued attempts to figure out
how they are going to pay for rebanding, not just
accept a loose promise of a down payment from Nextel.

Taking the big issue alone, funding, the effort to force rebanding is quite difficult.  The estimated price tag for public safety
alone is in the $2 billion range.  The
FCC has no statutory authority to raise the dough and distribute it to affected
licensees.  The public safety community
requires guarantees, which the coalition cannot give.  The private commercial systems are not in
line to pay for their own rebanding, much less public
safety, due to the impact of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  The cellular operators are not part of the
coalition and reject paying for anything beyond modifications to their own
systems.  With the exception of Nextel,
none of the coalition members have even offered a contribution toward the
effort.  Homeland Security money isn't
available at this time and is unlikely to be made available.  So, where's the money coming from?  It appears that no one knows and no one is
willing to be stuck with the entire check.

Robert Gurss' letter states
that figuring all of these issues out will "take slightly more time than
anticipated."  That statement
qualifies Mr. Gurss for consideration in the
competition for understatement of the year.

Robert Schwaninger

The Private Wireless Forum

for Mobile Communication Professionals

Private Radio & Wireless Industry News, Views, Information & More

Thank you for your continued support of the PWF!

Your feedback and suggestions are welcomed

and encouraged.

Know of others in our industry who might find the PWF useful?

Do them a favor and email them a copy along

with the links below.

To subscribe by email:

[email-masked]

To subscribe via the Web:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivateWirelessForum

For up-to-the-minute messages, real-time discussions, and

access to the PWF's Files and Links areas, visit the PWF's

webpage:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivateWirelessForum

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.