Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: Language in 'Refarming Proceeding' (Docket 99-87) riles paging, P/S...]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:33:54 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
   From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Language in 'Refarming Proceeding' (Docket 99-87) riles paging,
         P/S...

You're of course correct.  But for purposes of this particular discussion, it
didn't seem like an important distinction.

Amusingly, 92-235 wasn't even the original docket.  The original docket was PR
Doc. No. 87-213.  We had filed an Petition for Rule Making with the FCC asking
that the conventional 800 MHz pool channels be permitted to be used for trunking.
The FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry in 1987 in response, but included what is now
called Refarming of the 150 and 450 MHz bands in the same docket.  We knew that a
Refarming proceeding in those bands would take forever, so we successfully lobbied
to have them pulled apart into two separate proceedings.  As a result, we were
able to trunk the 800 MHz conventional channels in 1990, and the Refarming
proceeding didn't finish until........... hmmm, is it done yet?

Alan T.

In a message dated 9/2/2003 5:31:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [email-masked]
writes:

>   I wish everyone would get things straight.  99-87 is NOT the Refarming
> docket.  Refarming was, is,and always will be associated with 92-235.  When the
> FCC issued a R&O or MO&O a few years ago, it CLOSED the 92-235 docket.
>   Yes, th recondactions taken by the FCC in 99-87are "Refarming-like,"  but that
> does not make 99-87 the Refarming docket.