Subject: [NEXTEL-1] RE: Pericle Stumbles Again- Backgrounder

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 01:54:07 -0400

Repost
==================================
From:
[email-masked]
8/26/2003 2:58 AM

Subject:
Re: [NEXTEL-1] City and County of Denver, Colorado/ Pericle Report On 02-55
To:
[email-masked], WFHSG <[email-masked]>

The interference problem will never be solved while basic mistakes are being made
in the collection and analysis of data.
Even the people at Percile (Jay Jacobsmeyer) communications failed to identify
essential characteristics of iDEN in their report to The City of Denver on
Interference. iDEN employs dynamic channel control, which Percile fails to note
and take into account while taking iDEN measurements.

While Percile references many TIA & EIA, ETSI, FCC & other documents for CDMA,
TDMA and GSM there is no reference material specifically for iDEN.  Percile used a
run of the mill Grayson (WMS which has been discontinued) receiver which Percile
acknowledged required modification for the test. Adding filters, instead of using
an iDEN specific measurement device with software defined filtering
characteristics limits the usefulness of the data.

A iDEN specific measurement device by any of the big boys (Ericsson, Agilent,
etc.)  would have granted access to layer 3 messaging for a more in-depth
interference evaluation. The same could be said for AT&T.

Percile (Jay Jacobsmeyer) is product of VA Tech (Go Tech) and Cornell, he is
knowledgeable on other air interfaces, however he (or his people) should have went
the extra yard and done some Due Diligence on iDEN.

While iDEN is similar to TDMA it differs in may ways and requires iDEN specific
equipment and software  for proper evaluation.  If it was a proprietary issue, sub
the data collection to Moto and do the analysis yourself. The Post Processing
Procedure is lacking also since the only data collected was LAT, LONG and RSSI.
BER measurements from the alledged interferers & carriers  were also ignored. The
BER (and/ or SQE for iDEN)  measurement this would greatly enhance statistical
analysis. Anyway the mistakes go -on and on and on. This is a perfect example of
how incomplete / in accurate information is passed on to the FCC. At least now the
guys at the Bureau will see the flaws.

Denver report:
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6514182354

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
ReplayTV: Control live television
Special Sale: 50% off ReplayTV
CNet Ranked #1 over Tivo!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/aUMW7B/A6qGAA/ySSFAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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