Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: Co-Channel Interference Protection

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:22:43 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
   From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re Co-Channel Interference Protection

 Sorry, it wasn't meant as a yell "at you", but rather a shout from the rooftops
to everyone.  Kind of like a shofer calling attention to all. Now, to your
question.  Since Alex was not part of the drafting committee, how would he know
what the "intention" is/was?  Secondly, how can APCO "grant" something that isn't
provided for in the rules? Actually, the "intention" is to not mandate currently
short-spaced licensees are entitled to a better short-space situation than they
currently have (although most will anyway), just the same way it was in the Upper
200 relocation.  We actually recommended on page 52 of the 8/7/03 filing, in
response to the LCC folks that claimed that some licensees would get less capacity
(again, contrary to every filing that the Consensus Parties made) that the FCC
adopt a rule similar to Section 90.699(d)(2), which is the Upper 200 equivalent
capacity rules.  I have also told the FCC that the rest of 90.699(d) may also be
used for other aspects of equivalency. However, feel free to have Alex put his
position into the record, so that we may address it there. Alan

------------------------ 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/