Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Spectrum-Efficiency Order Offends Paging Industry

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 23:35:52 -0400

Spectrum-Efficiency Order Offends Paging Industry

Aug 27, 2003

U.S. paging operators aren't the only businesses surprised by the language of a
recent Federal Communications Commission order addressing spectrum efficiency in
frequencies used by private wireless systems. However, while no one surprised by
the order (WT Docket No. 99-87) is pleased by it, paging providers arguably have
the most to lose if the language isn't changed.

The Second Report and Order (2nd R&O) in the proceeding--known as the "Refarming
Proceeding" and released in February but not published until July 17--inexplicably
removes language that exempted paging-only operators from some
spectrum-efficiency, or "narrow-banding" requirements that were part of the
previous order, made in November 2000. And without those exemptions, some paging
companies will face going out of business.

In a petition for reconsideration filed Aug. 18, the American Association of
Paging Carriers (AAPC), the Allied National Paging Association, Arch Wireless
[Nasdaq: AWIN] and Metrocall Holdings [OTC: MTOH] say the FCC's previous decisions
to exempt "paging-only frequencies below 800 MHz from any narrow-banding
requirement was clear and unambiguous." The associations and the two paging
operators add that they "believe that including paging-only frequencies [in the
language of the 2nd R&O] was inadvertent."

Companies using frequencies below 800 MHz for paging services only had been
exempted from the proceeding's spectrum-usage efficiency measures including
migrating their operations from 25 kHz systems to 12.5. That exemption was made
because the FCC recognized that paging-only frequencies are not crowded and, as
such, are not areas where more efficiency is needed. However, the 2nd R&O dropped
the exemption without offering an explanation."This is the great mystery," says
Kenneth Hardman, an AAPC member and a partner in the Moir & Hardman law firm in
Washington, D.C. "We think this may have been inadvertent."

A second paging group, the Private Paging Coalition, which includes 13 regional
operators, also filed a petition for reconsideration that questions the logic of
eliminating the exemption. "We think it was an oversight on the commission's part,
that it was something that happened accidentally and not something they intended
to do," says attorney Richard Rubino of the law firm representing the coalition,
Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Prendegrast of Washington, D.C.

The exemption was established in a 1995 order by the FCC, and there is no
discussion in the recent order about removing the exemption, Rubino tells WDN. In
fact, the 2nd R&O includes language specifically stating that the same exemption
is retained for public-safety radio operations.

Regardless of why paging-only operations in frequencies below 800 MHz lost the
exemption, they want it restored. Without the exemption, they can no longer ask to
expand their 25 kHz footprints after Jan. 17 next year, and they must be
completely transitioned to 12.5 kHz operations by Jan. 1, 2013. However, there's
now way to add 12.5 kHz operations to only isolated parts of a 25 kHz network's
footprint.
"Given the way paging systems operate, you can't just add 12.5," Hardman tells
Wireless Data News. "If you have any 12.5, you've got to flash cut to 12.5. You
can't mix 12.5 and 25 kHz equipment on the same system."

The costs for complete transitions from 25 kHz to 12.5 kHz, of course, would be
depend on the size of the operation. But for no small number, those costs could
force them out of the business. One reason for that would be they would eventually
have to pay to transition their networks to 12.5 kHz to continue operating.
However, another reason would be they would not be able to add to their 25 kHz
footprint as they seek to remain competitive in the marketplace. Plus, with many
manufacturers phasing out or already stopping production of 25 kHz equipment,
one-way paging operators would have to rely on refurbished but still expensive
gear to repair their 25 kHz systems.

The issue of costs, though, won't sway the FCC. However, the commission is likely
to agree with paging operators' objections to the 2nd R&O. Sources at the FCC
familiar with the proceeding are not committing to issuing a proposal with the
changes sought by the paging community. But they say the paging-only exemption
wasn't intentionally deleted from the 2nd R&O. In addition, the commission agrees
that the paging-only frequencies do not require spectrum-usage efficiency
measures.

Paging Players Not Alone

In addition to the paging community's petition, the FCC received 13 other
requests, from a total of 35 companies, industry associations and public agencies,
to reconsider the 2nd R&O in the Refarming Proceeding. Most of those other
petitions for reconsideration also question why the commission changed certain
elements of the order when it wrote the 2nd R&O.

The Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group says the 2nd R&O "will preclude a
graceful migration to the next generation of technology, reduce competition among
manufacturers, and inhibit interoperability among federal, state, and local public
safety agencies. In so doing, the Commission runs the risk of compromising
critical homeland security initiatives."

In their petition, the Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials-International
and other public-safety related associations say the previous order allowed
sufficient time for public safety agencies to modify and add to their radio
systems to accommodate changing spectrum-efficiency requirements. "However, the
Commission repealed those provisions in the 2nd R&O without explanation," the
groups say.

The 2nd R&O "will prevent public safety licensees from adding critical capacity
and coverage for existing systems, locking them into current channels and
equipment supplies, or forcing them to expend scarce resources to replace
prematurely their entire radio systems," APCO and other groups contend.

Electronics manufacturer Kenwood U.S.A., represented by Christopher D. Imlay of
the Silver Spring, Md., law firm Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper, argues that
deadlines for manufacturers to transition to providing 12.5 kHz and 6 kHz
equipment "are seemingly based on a misinterpretation (or abandonment) of the
Commission's Refarming spectrum efficiency plan."

The American Petroleum Institute and the United Telecom Council, in addition to
asking for reconsideration, are asking the FCC for a partial stay of the 2nd R&O.
The two groups say that the 2nd R&O's deadlines for extending 25 kHz network
footprints are inappropriate.

>>Kenneth Hardman, [email-masked]; Richard Rubino, 202/659-0830; Rick
Murphy, Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users, 202/208-3939; Courtney McCarron,
APCO, [email-masked]; Kenwood U.S.A., (Christopher Imlay), 301/384-5525;
Wayne V. Black (American Petroleum Institute), 202/434-4100; Jill M. Lyon (United
Telecom Council), 202/872-0030<<

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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