Subject: [NEXTEL-1] 900 Mhz Interference

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 19:06:51 -0800

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
        Re: 900 MHz Interference (continued)
   Date:
        Sun, 2 Mar 2003 15:02:43 EST
  From:
        [email-masked]

OK, my turn........... Alan

In a message dated 3/2/2003 12:40:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email-masked] writes:

   Alan T.,
   You're being much too kind in your recent response to my post about
   the potential for Nextel to cause interference to 900 MHz users.
   Makes a fella wonder when an attorney is being so cordial!
   OK, here's my replies to yours:

A:  I'm always cordial when it's a good, intelligent, non-rancous debate
such as what you have raised here.  It is that kind of
debate that helps inform me and educate me.  As a result, at the end of
the day I can do a better job on behalf of my clients.  I
don't tolerate personal abuse, and particularly inaccurate and
misleading information which some (NOT YOU) write as factual
information on these boards.  To me, that was the reason to get involved
on this board in the first place, to get out the straight
facts.  Then, once the true facts are out, one can make an intelligent
decision.  Sounds like the current Fox News Channels
commercials, I know.

   B: I can appreciate the fact that a lot of time and energy has been
   put into the proposed compromise but by the very definition, it's a
   proposed "consent reached by mutual concessions." I don't think any
   reasoned or informed person would believe that the commission would
   have granted FleetCall/Nextel the favorable rulings and waivers that
   it did had it known that they would result in the current situation.
   If you accept that premise, then it would be unconscionable for the
   commission to allow the same problem to replicate in another band,
   e.g., 900 MHz. You don't fix things if they're not broken but you
   also don't allow things to be broken just so you can try and fix them

   later. Nextel should not be allowed to use cellularized iDEN (or any
   form of cellular service) in the 900 MHz band.

A: My point was, any kind of regulatory relief along the lines that you
suggest would take a very, very long time.  Thus, that's why
we're trying to reach an agreement on that issue, to prevent problems
now.

   ****************

   B: Again, I'm appreciative of the work that's been done but the
   problem needs to be contained and not allowed to spread.

   I see where Todd Ellis made a recent post that summarized comments
   that the 900 MHz Industrial Users Group filed in the current
   proceeding. Todd's group is taking the position that it's inevitable
   that Nextel will build out their system at 900 MHz and to minimize
   the interference they the following:
   Nextel will give potentially impacted incumbents 30 day notice of
   construction;
   Nextel will provide an "interference hot line" to call;
   A third party will be hired to assess suspected cases of interfernce;

   Nextel must resolve the interference within 3 days;
   If not resolved in 3 days, the FCC Enforcement Division will be
   brought in;
   If the Enforcement Division determines that Nextel is at fault,
   Nextel will be fined and required to shut the site down.

   Needless to say Nextel is not buying into the suggested constraints.
   But suppose they did, is it a solution? No, it's a box of bandaids
   and I sure as heck don't want the wounds that necessitate them.

   There's also some talk that perhaps the subscriber units' receivers
   need to be improved.

   A:  Actually, Nextel is "buying into" a lot more than you indicate.
We made a very conscious decision to put the 900 MHz
   resolution (and measurement techniques in Appendix F), as items to
get done AFTER we submitted the Supplemental
   Comments (as we were getting so much heat to get something filed),
there just wasn't enough time to do it all (and believe
   me, we tried!).  So, all I'm asking for is: (1) support for the work
that is continuing; and (2) a teeny bit of patience.

   B: Another proposed idea is to run tests on 900 MHz in a couple of
   cities to see what develops. My gut instinct tells me that unless
   there are many Nextel cell sites constructed in a close configuration

   akin to what they're using at 800 MHz and the system is heavily
   loaded, it won't be a true test. If in fact a valid test can be
   conducted and it shows little or no interference then I humbly
   suggest that the 800 MHz problem could, in fact, be resolved by
   Nextel's use of improved site equipment.

A:  I can't speak to that.  I'm an attorney, not an engineer and
although I've worked in radio (from the radio side) since 1972, I don't
quite have that kind of expertise to comment.  However, I do trust the
people involved (Todd, Mark, etc.) to recognize those
issues.  For Appendix F, I wanted somebody that I was totally
comfortable with (expertise, knowledge, etc.) on my side, and I
hired (out of my own pocket) George Wiemer out of Ray Trott's firm to
tell me when Nextel was or wasn't being reasonable, when
the public safety engineers were or weren't being reasonable, and to
help me find an acceptable path between the two.  George
was instrumental in making that happen.  Now, with the 900 MHz issue, I
think that the people involved can handle it fine.

   Guess I can't be more negative and non-conciliatory but to not stand
   up and be counted would be foolhardy on my part.

A:  Nobody's asking you not to stand up and be counted.  As I said, when
you brought this issue up to me many months ago, I
put it on the "table".  Sorry that you (and others) haven't been
satisfied with our effort to date, but I (and others) have tried our
absolute, damnest best.

   Bob Wallenburg
   Electrocom, Inc.

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