Subject: [NEXTEL-1] VHF-to-800 MHz solution to Nevada Highway Patrol radio system debac...]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:49:17 -0400

------- Original Message --------
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: VHF-to-800 MHz solution to Nevada Highway Patrol radio system
debac...
As I understand it, Mr. P. who was involved in the development of the NHP 
system was also the APCO Freq Coordinator for Nevada at the same time.  I believe 
the problem is much more than simply filing for coordination.  

The NHP system was VHF, and to do centralized trunking you must comply with 
the requirements of 90.187.  This requires concurrence from all of the 
potentially impacted co- channel and certain adjacent channel licensees for each 
frequency at each trunked site, or a showing that no co-channel or adjacent
channel 
licensees for each frequency at each trunked site fall within the bounds set 
out in 90.187.  I believe it was impossible for NHP to show no co-channel or 
relevant adjacent channel licenses fell within the bounds of 90.187, and since 
the FCC requires 100% concurrence it was extremely unlikely NHP could get the 
required concurrence, thereby making centrally trunked operations illegal.  It 
appears NHP radio management  seemingly ignored the requirements and lit the 
centrally trunked system up stepping on other licensees regardless of the NHP 
licensing status.

This was not an issue that arose within the past year or the past few months. 
 I have seen documentation from other licensees complaining to NHP and to 
APCO about the interference caused by the NHP system and/or its failure to comply 
with 90.187.  Such complaints go back to 1999 at least.

To me it seems a little too convenient to erect a chinese wall between NHP 
and Freq Coordination at this point when there is documented proof of the 
knowledge of both parties several years ago, as well as their individual 
refusals/failures to correct the problem back then.

Furthermore allegations of finding 54 VHF frequencies this past spring are 
very suspect.  Sure, it is possible to find 54 VHF freqs that could be used in a 
shared environment, but finding 54 freqs that also met the requirements of 
90.187 for utilization of centralized trunking is highly unlikely. In fact, I 
don't even see how Mr. R. would have had sufficient time to identify freqs and 
get the required concurrences. 

If in fact, I am wrong and NHP did comply with the requirements of 90.187 
where necessary, why doesn't NHP say so and provide proof of such compliance?

The real shame in this situation is that the taxpayers of Nevada may now have 
to pay for the actions of a few renegade employees who seemingly ignored any 
fiduciary duties they had to the people of Nevada.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
ReplayTV: CNet Ranked #1 over Tivo!
Instant Replay & Pause live TV.
Special Sale: 50% off!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/UUMW7B/.5qGAA/ySSFAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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