Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Larry K. (Nextel V.P.) Prepares To Weasel Out of $850M Public Safety Commitment.

From: Marcelrf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 20:26:25 -0500

Larry K. (Nextel V.P.) Prepares To Weasel Out of $850M Public Safety
Commitment.

NEXTEL:  FCC CAN'T FORCE IT TO PAY 800 MHz BAND RELOCATION COSTS

The FCC can't force Nextel Communications, Inc., to pay for the
relocation costs of public safety and private wireless licensees as part
of a rebanding of the 800 megahertz band, an official for the carrier
said today.  Verizon Wireless and Cingular Wireless LLC have recently
told the Commission that the agency should force Nextel to pick up such
costs as part of an in-band realignment of the frequencies.

Lawrence R. Krevor, Nextel's vice president-government affairs, told
TRDaily that the Commission lacked the authority to force his company to
pick up the relocation costs of 800 MHz band licensees as part of a
realignment of the frequencies.  He said Nextel planned to submit a
formal response to the Verizon Wireless and Cingular filings next week.
Mr. Krevor also dismissed the suggestion that a realignment involving
only the 800 MHz band would eliminate commercial interference to public
safety systems in the 800 MHz band.  "This is just recycling an old idea
that doesn't work for a whole bunch of reasons," he said.

Mr. Krevor indicated that Nextel would withdraw its pledge to pay $850
million to relocate public safety and private wireless incumbents in the
800 MHz band if the FCC refused to grant it 10 MHz in the 1.9 gigahertz
band in exchange for other spectrum it would return.  "We've been very
clear that without the replacement spectrum at 1.9, we don't propose to
fund the realignment," he said.  "We believe that the 10 MHz is a fair
and equitable replacement for what we give up."

Mr. Krevor and Geoffrey M. Stearn, Nextel's VP-strategy, said Nextel's
spectral and financial obligations under the consensus plan were worth
more than $2 billion more than the 1.9 GHz band spectrum it would
receive.  They said the carrier's contribution was $5.4 billion, while
the 1.9 GHz band spectrum was worth $3.5 billion, although it would have
to pay $165 million to relocate incumbents there.

A study commissioned by Nextel that was released in November calculated
Nextel's contributions at $4.6 billion.  Mr. Krevor said the higher
estimate included more detailed figures for Nextel's internal retuning
costs and the costs of accepting restrictions on the use of spectrum in
the 861-863 MHz band.  An analysis released by Verizon Wireless in
October estimated that the value of Nextel's spectrum holdings would
increase by $7.2 billion under the consensus plan, and that its net
windfall would be $6.5 billion.

Meanwhile, FCC sources said a draft order was still expected to begin
circulating among Commissioners' offices soon.  There's been
considerable speculation about what's in the draft.  An agency source
said last week that while such a rebanding appeared likely, it was
unclear whether the agency would approve a swap for 1.9 GHz band
spectrum.

Sources today said the draft called for an in-band realignment but
included a bidding voucher of about $1 billion for Nextel in exchange
for the carrier paying the relocation costs of private wireless and
public safety licensees.  Nextel would be able to use the voucher at a
future auction, a source said.

http://www.aspenpublishers.com/
--
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

---

From: Glenn Little WB4UIV <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:06:59 -0500

Why does the FCC put up with the interference that Nextel causes? If I as a 
smaller radio operator caused the same problem, I would have to turn all 
licenses that I held back into the FCC and pay the fines. Here Nextel just 
keeps causing interference without penalty. Seems to be a problem here. Is 
someone paying insurance money to the FCC??

73
Glenn
WB4UIV

At 08:26 PM 03/05/04 -0500, you wrote:
>The FCC can't force Nextel Communications, Inc., to pay for the relocation 
>costs of public safety and private wireless licensees as part of a 
>rebanding of the 800 megahertz band, an official for the carrier said 
>today.  Verizon Wireless and Cingular Wireless LLC have recently told the 
>Commission that the agency should force Nextel to pick up such costs as 
>part of an in-band realignment of the frequencies.
>
>realignment of the frequencies.  He said Nextel planned to submit a formal 
>response to the Verizon Wireless and Cingular filings next week.
>Mr. Krevor also dismissed the suggestion that a realignment involving only 
>the 800 MHz band would eliminate commercial interference to public safety 
>systems in the 800 MHz band.  "This is just recycling an old idea that 
>doesn't work for a whole bunch of reasons," he said.
>
>fund the realignment," he said.  "We believe that the 10 MHz is a fair and 
>equitable replacement for what we give up."
>
>receive.  They said the carrier's contribution was $5.4 billion, while the 
>1.9 GHz band spectrum was worth $3.5 billion, although it would have to 
>pay $165 million to relocate incumbents there.
>
>the 861-863 MHz band.  An analysis released by Verizon Wireless in October 
>estimated that the value of Nextel's spectrum holdings would increase by 
>$7.2 billion under the consensus plan, and that its net windfall would be 
>$6.5 billion.
>
>circulating among Commissioners' offices soon.  There's been considerable 
>speculation about what's in the draft.  An agency source said last week 
>that while such a rebanding appeared likely, it was unclear whether the 
>agency would approve a swap for 1.9 GHz band spectrum.
>
>included a bidding voucher of about $1 billion for Nextel in exchange for 
>the carrier paying the relocation costs of private wireless and public 
>safety licensees.  Nextel would be able to use the voucher at a future 
>auction, a source said.
>
><http://www.aspenpublishers.com/>http://www.aspenpublishers.com/
>--
>Subscribe to Nextel-1: 
><http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1>http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1 
>
>
>Subscribe to Nextel2: 
><http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2>http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2 
>
>
>Subscribe to 
>WFHSG: 
><http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG>http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG 
>
>
>
>--
>Subscribe to Nextel-1: 
><http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1>http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1
>
>Subscribe to Nextel2: 
><http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2>http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2
>
>Subscribe to 
>WFHSG: 
><http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG>http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>    * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>    * 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/ 
>
>    *
>    * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    * 
> <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=Unsubscribe>[email-masked] 
>
>    *
>    * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email-masked]

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

---

From: Don Root <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 13:07:38 -0800

> someone paying insurance money to the FCC??

The FCC "puts up with the interference" because the interference is 
legally being generated.

Nextel operates in Industrial (Part 90) spectrum, not Cellular.  Public 
Safety is also in Part 90 spectrum.  There was no digital operation of 
the type Nextel uses when the 800 MHz Part 90 allocation was made, and 
Nextel meets the emission standards for Part 90.  It is the way Nextel 
implemented their Cellular-like system design that is the issue.

Don
K6CDO

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

---

From: "marcel_rf1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 21:22:15 -0000

AKA POOR ENGINEERING!

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

---

From: Don Root <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 13:35:14 -0800

> AKA POOR ENGINEERING!

Or, in the FCC's case, NO engineering.

(Just my $.02)
Don

------------------------ 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/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

---

From: Rick Parrish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 15:31:16 -0600

Don Root wrote:

>It is the way Nextel implemented their Cellular-like system design that is the issue.
>  
>
If their implementation is causing interference, then it isn't a legal 
emission. Am I missing something here? Sure, an iDEN network can be 
operated in a manner that plays well with other users in the band. So 
why doesn't the FCC step up to their role as the noise police and clean 
house?

[ Actually, they do if you look at the history of fines levied against 
Nextel. ]

Nextel has a right to operate their network. However, the company seems 
to manage EMI problems in a reactive manner rather than a pro-active 
one. The squeeky wheel gets the grease. Maybe if everyone squeaks at 
once ...

-rick

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

---

From: Don Root <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 15:34:29 -0800

Rick Parrish wrote:

> emission. Am I missing something here? 

Yes, I believe you are missing something here.

Public Safety puts up a limited number of high level, relatively high 
power sites to cover an area.  This is just like trunked commercial 
systems used to do when the spectrum was allocated, creating parity 
between Public Safety and Industrial systems at street level.

Nextel now puts up numerous low-level "cells" at street level (on top of 
billboards, flagpoles, and 3-5 story buildings).  These "cells" are also 
relatively high power (up to 1 KW ERP), operating within legal emission 
masks, and in many cases, on channels interleaved with Public Safety.

While operating in a manner compliant with FCC Rules, by virtue of being 
"cellular" in design and digital the Nextel sites present Public Safety 
users on the street with off-channel noise that is coming from a 
location very near the Public Safety user, and therefore as strong or 
stronger than the on-channel Public Safety signal originating a number 
of miles away that the user is trying to listen to.

Don

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

---

From: Rick Parrish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 22:10:48 -0600

>Yes, I believe you are missing something here.
[ Don - it wouldn't be the first time. You raise an excellent point. 
Here's my spin on things in terms of where I think the FCC's 
emphasis/priority should be placed. ]

>between Public Safety and Industrial systems at street level.
I'm seeing a lot of simulcasting by the PS/Comm (Public Safety and 
Commercial) systems. They seem to be moving toward something more like a 
cellular footprint in terms of emission with the high sites providing 
coverage in the more rurals areas. [ Disclaimer: I live in a flat area 
with ground elevation averaging 70 feet above sea level - your mileage 
may vary. ] It isn't clear to me if this approach is for better coverage 
in weak areas (ie. terrain) or to make up for an overall high noise 
floor from neighbors like Nextel.

>masks, and in many cases, on channels interleaved with Public Safety.
Understood - I presume the 1KW ERP is the sum of all the channels in a 
given cell - that's like 20 channels at 50 watts each or 30 channels at 
33 watts each. I also presume a 20 or 30 channel trunked system to put 
out a comparable ERP per site.

>of miles away that the user is trying to listen to.
I understand the issues of receiver desense when positioned near a 
strong source like a cell tower. I suspect that a Nextel phone would 
have troubling holding a connection when located near the base of a 
PS/Comm tower. As for digital, the analog PS/Comm users are sandwiched 
right in there with all-digital Motorola Astro, APCO P25 and EDACS 
Provoice systems. I don't see the digital aspect of iDEN as a big deal.

Nextel's network topology is very different from dispatch oriented 
services because they gain a much greater benefit from frequency re-use 
(more concurrent subscribers). Instead of deploying a site in an area 
with relatively high ERP, perhaps they could break the cell into smaller 
sizes. Of course this raises the infrastructure costs for Nextel.

The converse is that the PS/Comm networks make their systems even more 
cellular-like by deploying more simulcast systems to raise their signal 
strength - at street level, as you say. Again, this raises the 
infrastructure costs for a different set of users.

When both sets of users (Nextel and everyone else) are playing by the 
rules then it's hard say who should bear the cost. What concerns me is 
when one of the players deploys new equipment or upgrades without 
studying the impact of those changes to the RF environment. It's this 
"Just plug it in and it works, appliance operator" attitude that is 
causing more serious forms of interference - the kinds that are not 
within FCC permitted emission masks. Intermod, spurious emissions, and 
other strangeness that can be hard to diagnose.

Perhaps the most "fair" way to address this issue is to change the rules 
(1) on emission levels or (2) require all users to accept a certain 
amount of interference from their neighbors or (3) all of the above. It 
might be possible to come up with a compromise that minimizes the 
upgrade equipment costs for all parties (more cells at reduced power for 
Nextel and more simulcast or intell-repeater sites for PS/Comm). I'm 
assuming each party would bear the costs of their own system upgrades. 
Cynical note: I'm sure that radio manufacturers like Motorola would 
agree with this solution.

Don - the issue you are raising above is important, but I think it's a 
softer issue than the genuinely illegal one that I'm describing here.

And just before I hand over the soapbox, let me repeat that the FCC 
should be leasing spectrum, not selling it. These limits on spectrum use 
(service type, power levels, etc.) are like deed restrictions. I think 
the FCC would be more effective as a benevolent landlord than as a 
home-owners association trying to meekly remind the neighbors to mow 
their lawn.

Regards,
Rick

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

---

From: "Bill Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 12:24:29 -0500

One of the base radios I maintain is co-located with a State Police
Smartzone site in Southeastern Mass. Less than 100 feet away is a county 800
system. These are no Cellular, PCS or Nextel sites within maybe 3 miles of
heavily wooded terrain. My Nextel barely works. If several channels are up
on the PS systems, my Nextel is useless while my Verizon CDMA phone is
solid. The Nextel doesn't become reliable until I am more than 1/2 mile from
the site. 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links