Subject: [NEXTEL-1] New Reply Comments - 800 Mhz NPRM (02-55)

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:11:46 -0400

Reply Comments from
The State of California on
The Consensus Plan

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513297933

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Looking for a more powerful website? Try GeoCities for $8.95 per month.
Register your domain name (http://your-name.com). More storage! No ads!
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info
http://us.click.yahoo.com/auyVXB/KJoEAA/jd3IAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 04:21:48 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
   From: "bob_c_89431" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: New Reply Comments - 800 Mhz NPRM (02-55)

Which would be a faster solution, make Nextel and it's cousins clean
up their immediately troublesome sites or completely reconfigure
every single radio in your state?

Given this choice, I would vote in favor of taking advantage of
existing law requiring an interferer to stop interfering within a
certain time frame or simply cease operation.

Afterall, how many of Nextel's California sites are you really having
trouble with? I'd like to see some bonafide numbers depicting
evidence of actual interference issues that jeapordize typical on-
going public safety communications in Cailfornia.

My curiousity is piqued.

When an entity, such as..and especially..the state of California, so
quickly opts out on the basics of law and sides with a total radio
system makeover I have to wonder what their ulterior motive is. What
is the state really after and what does it stand to gain?

I read the state's reply a couple times just to see if my initial
impressions remained. They did. I'll share my thoughts and let each
of you tell me I'm full of it. I have broad shoulders, it won't hurt
too badly.

This lasting impression is that I could believe the state is trying
to capitalize on the Nextel monies set aside for retuning and
reprogramming.

One of the first statements which caught my eye was about removing
the monetary cap that Nextel had volunteered. Undoubtedly this amount
would most likely have fallen a bit short but I got the distinct
impression that California wants to raise it subtantially.

Next, I caught the statement about recrystalling their radios instead
of reprogramming. I don't know how many crystal radios remain in
operation there. But..what better way to upgrade them than to use an
excuse like the crystal radio isn't worth the expense and effort
involved. It would be economically wiser to replace it with something
newer that can be reprogrammed. How many new radios do you think the
state could slip through under the auspices of recrystalling and
retuning?

What other justifications could slip through? Well, we needed a few
new service vehicles for our techs to go to the corners of the state
to "recrystal" and retune? Well, our service monitors aren't really
suited for quickly and efficiently retuning cavities, duplexers and
making sure the new frequencies in all areas are clear. We had to buy
new ones just for this massive theatre of operations. Well..since our
techs needed to travel so far and stay in motels.. Well..since we
want to make sure everyone performs their jobs efficiently while away
from home base, we needed to send supervisors to oversee the work and
naturally, the supervisors required separate quarters.... Well..ad
nauseum.

Everything else I read had to do with wringing every single penny
possible out of Nextel under the guise of interference abatement.

How many jobs and positions will this money subsidize during such a
massive undertaking? I could see California sucking up a large
percentage of this money leaving other entities short.

Ok, I'll stop throwing jabs at California here.

Yes, I'm the original cynic and I don't find it in me to trust the
decisions coming out of Sacramento.

And...to coin a familiar phrase..."Maybe I'm wrong?"

Let the flames begin!

BobC

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 04:27:18 -0400

------- Original Message --------
   From: "ptt4all" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ Re: New Reply Comments - 800 Mhz NPRM (02-55)

I move that the first option offered by BobC be placed
before the membership for a vote. All those in favor say:

"We're NOT going to take this anymore - if you can't play
by the same rules as everyone else in this business must,
then pick up your wanna-be cell phone, almost, but not quite
a REAL radio, and take a hike. We no longer will accept or
condone your misquided and self-serving how business gets
done practices in OUR industry."

JW

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 04:40:02 -0500

------- Original Message --------
   From: "bob_c_89431" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: New Reply Comments - 800 Mhz NPRM (02-55)

Jack,

In a nutshell, I am no one of consequence. I have no affiliations
with any of the respondents to this consensus plan. I have no agenda
and nothing to gain or loose no matter which direction the Fed's go
in. If it can be claimed as a position, I'm a questioner of things
that don't make sense to me..until or unless someone can give me an
answer I understand.

I simply responded to language in a a post from a state entity that
aroused my suspicions and curiousity.

The subsequent posting was a direct result of a couple of emails sent
to me by someone mistaking me for someone else.

Basically, from the first email I received the impression that I had
stepped in something regarding my post about the state of
California's reply. The second email was a bit more scathing but
ultimately allowed me enough information to discern that the sender
had in fact mistaken me for someone else. Either that or this person
was fishing for something because he had no clue who I really am.

I have since returned email, including my phone number, in an attempt
to offer further proof that I am not the person he thinks nor
deserving the intent in the email. To date I haven't received a
response.

In as much as I believe this was all a simple case of mistaken
identity I will say no more about it and allow it to fade gracefully
into the sunset.

Thank you all and apologies for any inconveniences to the group and
it's owner.

BobC

P.S. I still don't have an answer as to why California wants to
embrace such a lengthy, arduous undertaking when it's own reply
repeatedly specifies a necessity of expedience in resolving
interferences. Just doesn't make sense to me...yet.

Jack Daniel <JackDaniel@R...> wrote:
> Bob,
snipped....

> I personally don't agree with anything you said about California
but I can see how you might get those impressions if this one letter
is all the info on the subject you have..... but that doesn't mean I
have a right to dump on you!
>
> Instead, I recommend you get the FCC files and maybe review this
groups archives to get up to speed.
>
>
> BobC, you'll notice most of use real or easily identified names and
> compamy affiliations. That helps us all understand the originators
> biases and any agenda they may have. Maybe I missed that info and I
for one will appreciate your position better if I know.
>
>
> But I may be wrong..........
>
> Jack Daniel