Subject: Re: [NEXTEL-1] Re: RICHARDSON DECISION FILINGS FROM WIRELESS CARRIERS MEAN F...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:21:41 EST

In a message dated 3/6/2003 12:04:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> And as always you are under$tanding of Nextel's postion regardless of 
> who they are $crewing, until they $crew your firm. 

Not really, as I didn't take a position on who was $crewing whom, or even if 
there was any $crewing going on.  It's that your original post puts forth the 
proposition that just because parties are cooperative on one issue, that 
can't be oppositional on others.  I didn't say that I UNDERSTOOD Nextel's 
position (in fact, I specifically stated that "I'm not taking sides on E911, 
either way", since I'm not involved enough in it to make an intelligent 
decision, which unfortunately doesn't stop others), only that your 
proposition was false.  That's the ONLY issue that I was addressing.

As a further example, my clients are VERY oppositional to the positions that 
UTC has taken in the 800 MHz proceeding.  But that doesn't mean that we'll 
refuse to continue to work with UTC on the dozen issues that LMCC is 
presently working on.

And, as to the last part of your sentence, I have personal, actual 
experiences with Nextel trying to "$crew my firm."  We can start from the 
beginning of Fleet Call, for example, when Nextel folks complained to 
Motorola (then a major force at then-NABER) about SMR applications that I was 
filing on behalf of my clients at the FCC.  Motorola then complained to 
NABER, and the underlying theme was to force me to stop (didn't seem to 
matter to Fleet Call that our filings were using the exact same engineering 
basis as Fleet Call's).  Shortly thereafter, at an AMTA meeting (it might 
still have been ASNA at the time), I learned that Brian McAuley was going to 
put up a picture at a session of L.A. with contours, showing one of the 
applications that I had filed, and was going to claim that I was "green 
mailing" Nextel.  My partner David Weisman and I urged him not to do it, 
because they were legitimate applications.  Undaunted, he did it anyway.  One 
of the panelists with Brian was Bart Fisher (whom I think just about everyone 
in the SMR industry knows, so I won't give his bio, and someone that I have 
never represented).  Bart turned to Brian and said "Brian, explain to me 
again how that Mt. Emma application is a green mail application, because I 
was planning on managing that system!"

I could give you more recent examples, but that would require revealing 
client confidences, but at least one involves a multi-millionaire dollar deal 
for one of my clients.  A lot easier to discuss the very public story 
(although those of you at the congressional hearing a number of months ago 
before we developed the current proposal no doubt noticed Foosaner look 
directly into my eyes when he said "Some people have been LONG TIME opponents 
of Nextel").  So, I have plenty of experience with Nextel on that side of the 
ledger.

I can't fault anyone for finding fault with Nextel's basic position in the 
E911 proceeding, but I CAN find fault with the proposition that just because 
two parties reach an agreement on one issue, they have to kissee-face on ALL 
issues.

Alan Tilles

---

From: "marcel_rf1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:21:41 -0000

--- In [email-masked], landmobilelawyer@a... wrote:

> Not really, as I didn't take a position on who was $crewing whom, > 
or even if there was any $crewing going on. 

It's clear who is getting screwed here, The Public, APCO and others 
involved on the PSAP Cert issue. Nextel's Pet Recon is only going to 
further delay E-911 deployment.

>It's that your original post puts forth the 
> proposition that just because parties are cooperative on one issue, 
> that can't be oppositional on others. 

I was not speaking about general parties here I was speaking 
specifically about Nextel.

If anyone thinks that Pvt Wireless or Public Safety will benefit from 
the "Plan" they are sadly mistaken. The "Plan" speaks to many of (but 
not all) of the technical issues but it fails to address some of the 
financial loopholes that are available to Nextel, which they have 
found. 

Did you know Nextel has a back door if the "Plan" fails to get 
approved by the FCC? The alternate plan will leave many blowing in 
the wind. A Wash. Beltway firm is running the the behind the scenes 
action (you worked with one of the attorneys at your previous firm 
and he remembers you well).

I must hand it to Nextel on this one they have set up a Win-Win 
situation. 

>I didn't say that I UNDERSTOOD Nextel's 

That is incorrect. I'm not asserting that if parties agree on one 
issue they can't disagree on another.

> As a further example,

Your examples are fine but I'm sure I can identify twice as many that 
will dismiss your premiss of cooperation between Nextel and others.

> experiences with Nextel trying to "$crew my firm." We can start 
> from the beginning of Fleet Call, 

There is really no need to revisit the 90's it's all in the book. You 
are missing the point here. Nextel has set up several non-exclusive 
agreements that allows them plenty of "Weasel Room". We have all seen 
the "Plan" but where is the Contract????????????

If things go wrong who is everyone going to blame?

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