Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re:PSWN meeting

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:35:20 -0500

Wait a Minute Batman-

Holy Mis-Communication!

I guess he  forgot to mention-

Durning the Q&A secession.

There was new opposition;  The DoD Spoke out against the plan to Ms. Ham & Don Speights.

(we can get technical on if DoD has the right to oppose it but since this "PLAN" is all
about politics no need to debate the issue)

Don Speights said that NEXTEL expects OTHERS WHO ARE  INTERFERING to PAY $$$ to make up
Nextel's Short Fall-

Contrary to what Morggie has been telling people-

<SNIP>
------- Original Message --------
From: "Stanley Sines" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [800interference] Re: Resolving 800 MHz Interference?
To: <[email-masked]>

Having sat in a meeting with Mr. O'Brien and other Nextel representatives I
can tell you that from what I heard he absolutely expects the federal
government in one way or another to pick up the difference between the 500
million offered by Nextel and the actual cost (1.5 to 2.5 Billion
estimated).  Don't think for a minute he intends anything different.  Nextel
will beg, borrow or steal whatever they think necessary to keep this baby
going!

Al Sines

Concerned Public Safety Communications Professional and one hell of an angry
tax payer!

-------- Original Message --------
From: "Swift, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [800interference] Resolving 800 MHz Interference?
To: <[email-masked]>

I had the pleasure of sitting in on a Nextel sponsored meeting here in Miami-Dade County
Florida.  One of the members of the audience asked how come we (local government) should
pay for Nextel's problem.  Mr. O'Brien assured us there was no problem, since Homeland
Defense funds would likely pick up the balance of any shortfalls.  Now, wait a minute,
aren't Homeland Defense funds made of tax dollars?  Isn't it true that the more Homeland
dollars we spend trying to mitigate the Nextel problems, the less there might be for
anti-terrorist materials?  So, now Nextel wants to raid the funds we use to protect our
taxpayers?  As a taxpayer and, someone who would appreciate some Homeland Defense for my
tax dollars, I sure do hope we continue to make that multimillion dollar company that
reported "record setting" earnings in the third quarter of 2002, be responsible for their
actions.  I wonder, does Mr. O'Brien's funding plan in fact mean that Nextel is actually
admitting they're a terrorist organization and, our Homeland needs to be defended from
them?
Regards,

Jason Swift

A taxpayer, not expressing the opinion of any group or, organization, just his own.
=============================================================

I will post a full report by Monday. Still transcribing.

Have a good night

Marcel-

[email-masked] wrote:

>  In a message dated 10/31/2002 9:14:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, [email-masked] writes:
>
>
>
>> Anyone have a summary of yesterday's PSWN (Public
>> Safety Wireless Network) meeting?
>>
>>
>> Mark
>
> Mark, I wasn't there.  Therefore, I don't have first-hand knowledge.  However, since no
> one who was there has responded to your post from this morning, I can tell you only what
> I was told by some acquaintances who were at the meeting.  So, if second-hand
> information suffices, here it is.
>
> I was told that it was a rehash of the history of the proceeding and current status.  As
> you knew previously, Kathleen Ham of the FCC was on the panel with Don Speights of
> NTIA.  There was no new NTIA announcement of opposition or distancing from the Consensus
> Plan, not did Ms. Ham make any new statements.  One interesting statement was that they
> observed that the Motorola plan would require Congressional action.
>
> There were no reported "new details" (Marcel's 10/28 9:14 a.m. post).  There was no
> "Looks like NTIA may be backing away from the "PLAN" (Marcel's 10/29 8:29 pm post)(NTIA
> was never part of it, ever, so there wasn't anything for them to "back away from").
>
> I cannot speak to the validity of this summary, I can only state that it was what I was
> told.
>
> Alan T.