A chronological summary of the Ex Parte submissions of Nextel that have occurred since the issuance of WT 02-55 (FCC 04-168)
Provided by:
Syracuse
Research Corporation
Anthony Cimo KA2TXT
Research
Engineer
System Technology Center (STC) Frequency
Coordinator
6225 Running Ridge
Road
North Syracuse, N.Y.
13212
(315) 452-8114 voice (
(315) 452-8180 fax (
SRC Website http://www.syrres.com/
|
Date of issuance |
Summary of proceeding |
|
|
Focus of filing: Procedural matters on LOC disbursal to reduce costs to Nextel. Issues included: 1) Nextel believes the LOC should be handled by a number of institutions to separately responsible for a proportionate share of the full $2.5 Billion amount. Nextel also believes the LOC arrangements to be structured to provide for the designation of a single agent to act on behalf of each of the issuing financial institutions. 2) In response to the Commission’s request to describe additional costs and burdens that would result by having the LOC Trustee make frequent and recurring draws under the LOC to disburse funds relating to each relocation, as opposed to allowing Nextel to pay 800 MHz incumbent relocation costs directly. Nextel explains how the LOC draw request includes a minimum fee or .1% which could total in excess of $2.5 million for the majority of draw requests which could be less than $500,000. Nextel also iterated that the Trustee’s duties would also be increased resulting in higher cost and expense. 3) Nextel recommends the Commission employ standards set forth in the Trust Indenture Act to determine whether an entity that seeks to act as the LOC trustee is independent and free of impermissible conflicts of interests. |
|
|
Focus of filing: Nextel urging Commission to clarify the interference abatement measures adopted in the R&O Issues included: 1) The signal strength specified in the R&O to mitigate unacceptable CMRS to public safety interference was based on technical assumptions and solutions proposed by the Consensus Parties that are possible only after the 800 MHz band reconfiguration is complete and not during the reconfiguration transition process. 2) Nextel wants the Commission to “clarify” its new interference abatement provisions to articulate a transition period interference protection standard that takes into account the technical realities of the interleaved public safety-CMRS-private wireless 800 MHz spectrum environment. |
|
|
Focus of filing: Nextel discussed a number of procedural and logistical issues they took with the R&O regarding the LOC. Issues included: 1) The first issue dealt with the manner in which the R&O handled the LOC payments. Nextel suggested that it would be difficult but not impossible due to the size of the LOC ($2.5 Billion) to have a single financial institution be responsible for dispersal of funds. They suggested one or more institutions would be better each separately responsible for a proportionate share of the $2.5B. They suggested a single agent should be used along with multiple financial institutions. The arrangement as a whole would provide a safeguard against any financial ills that may afflict Nextel. 2) The second issue asked the Commission to permit Nextel to pay incumbent relocation costs directly with periodic reductions in the amount of the LOC rather than having the LOC Trustee make frequent periodic reductions in the amount of the LOC and incur recurring draws under the LOC. 3) Nextel discussed appropriate qualifications for a LOC Trustee, need to independent – no conflicts of interest, and cited the need to meet the Trustee Indenture Act. 4) Lastly, Nextel sought confirmation that paragraph 87 of the R&O was not intended to imply or require that Nextel and the other affected parties must continue to perform their respective obligations under the R&O in such circumstances – in the event a court invalidates the R&O. |
|
|
Focus of filing: Nextel urging Commission to clarify the interference abatement measures adopted in the R&O Issues included: 1) Nextel provided the Commission with the required disclosure of people who met with various personnel at the FCC. They also included a briefing which covered a number of issues. 2) In this briefing there are a number of items requested of the Commission: Operational Flexibility for all Incumbents a. Clarify that R&O provides Nextel full flexibility to use all vacant channels below 817/862 MHz during configuration – with no upfront shutdown of Nextel’s General Category channels* b. No
mandatory clearing of B/ILT or SMR licensees from channels 121-150 (except Nextel and Reconfiguration Milestones c. 36 month reconfiguration period should begin on start date of reconfiguration in first NPSPAC region (not Public Notice date announcing this start date)* Efficient Reconfiguration Process d. Clarify that Nextel and incumbents may directly negotiate and implement retuning agreements unless either asks Transition Administrator (TA) e. Want for written agreements between Nextel and incumbents f. Clarify that R&O leaves retuning sequences and details to TA ESMR & EA Clarification g. Clarify that channels 1-120 non-ESMR EA licensees (other than Nextel and Southern Linc) will be retuned to comparable channels below 861.4 MHz* h. ESMR licensees (other than Nextel and Southern Linc) choosing to move from non-cellular block should relocate to: 817/862 MHz down to 816/861 MHz, excess channels if any go to 817/862 MHz and up.* Interference Protection Standards i. -101/-104 dBm interference protection standard achievable only after realignment* j. New standard goes beyond transition period interference protection advocated by public safety. k. FCC should enforce transition period interference protection standard tailored to the interleaved spectrum environment that remains (both lower channels and NPSTC) until reconfiguration completed in a region.* Nextel’s Retuning Costs l. Nextel will need to add base stations to replace 800 MHz capacity lost as a consequence of band reconfiguration process* m. Clarify that Nextel should receive credit for these costs, which are integral to achieving 800 MHz reconfiguration* Nextel’s 800 MHz Spectrum Contribution n. R&O underestimates Nextel pops for General Category and interleaved channels – Nextel covers 286 million pops (nationwide coverage) – not 234 million; resulted in almost $740 million under-valuation of Nextel’s spectrum contribution. o. R&O’s methodology with accurate pops and granular licensing data: Nextel should receive credit of $2.059 billion for its 800 MHz spectrum contribution ($452 million more than R&O) p. Letter of Credit Issues q. Permit “stand by” rather than “debit card” Letter of Credit: less costly and more efficient – same protection against risk of default/bankruptcy. |
|
|
Focus of filing: Focused on ascertaining whether the R&O’s configuration process and procedures will enable completing 800 MHz reconfiguration within the time frames set forth by the Commission. Issues included: 1) Nextel asked the Commission to confirm that they may operate on all 800 MHz vacant or vacated channels below 817/862 MHz during transition process (the cannel block Nextel will vacate post-realignment) and vacate all channels below upon completing the reconfiguration on a region by region basis. 2) Importance of direct negotiations between Nextel and incumbents resulting in a written retuning agreement containing all material terms, such as replacement channels, retuning costs, and cost of breakdowns, timing and other material considerations.* 3) Request TA act as negotiating intermediary. 4) Nextel recommended the Commission clarify that if an incumbent fails to engage in retuning negotiations during the mandatory negotiating period, or simply rejects Nextel’s retuning offers without providing realistic counter-offers, such action would violate the “good faith” negotiating requirement set forth in the R&O for which the Commission may initiate enforcement action. Additional clarifications of R&O: 5)
Incumbent B/ILT or SMR licensees (other than Nextel
and 6) Commission should make clear that the R&O’s 18 month band reconfiguration milestone contemplates clearing channels 1-120 in 20 NPSPAC regions of all incumbent licensees other than Southern Link and Nextel. 7)
Incumbent non-ESMR EA licensees on channels 1-120
(other than Nextel and 8) ESMR incumbents (other than Nextel and Southern Linc) that elect to be relocated out of the “non-cellular” channel block will be retuned first to 817/861-862 MHz block (starting at 861.9875 MHz and working downward) to the extent the 816-817/861-862 MHz block does not contain a sufficient number of replacement channels, an ESMR incumbent’s remaining channels will be retuned to 817/862 MHz and above on consecutive, contiguous channels. 9) Commission should clarify and confirm that Nextel will receive credit in the financial reconciliation process described in paragraphs 329-330 of the R&O for the costs it incurs in adding base stations necessary to maintain its existing network capacity during the band reconfiguration transition process.* 10) The milestones and deadlines for completing band reconfiguration should begin to run on the start date of band reconfiguration in the first NPSPAC region (not the public notice date announcing this start date).* Also covered 11) Concern over interference abatement measures adopted in the R&O incorporate interference protection standards specially designed for a post-reconfiguration spectrum environment in which Nextel, other cellular, and public safety licensees would not be operating in interleaved or directly adjacent spectrum allocations. 12) Nextel noted it had provided evidence demonstrating that it holds nationwide licenses for General Category and Lower 80 interleaved SMR channels, but that the R&O’s calculation of Nextel’s spectrum position appears to be inconsistent with that information. |
|
|
Focus of filing: Process set forth in the R&O for realigning the 800 MHz band Issues included: Nextel discussed the process set forth in the R&O for realigning the 800 MHz band, interference protection standards, the coverage of Nextel’s current 800 MHz licenses, and the best means of minimizing disruption to incumbent systems and ensuring a timely completion of the 800 MHz rebanding process. Nextel emphasized the importance of providing operational flexibility for 800 MHz incumbent licensees while ensuring an efficient and expeditions band reconfiguration process. |
|
|
Focus of filing: Confirmation of Nextel’s understanding that the public date of the R&O (FCC 04-168) issued is the date of its publication in the Federal Register Issues included: Procedural. |
|
|
Focus of filing: Nextel continued Ex Parte discussions from Issues included: 1) Nextel discussed the process set forth in the R&O for realigning the 800 MHz band, interference protection standards, and the best means of minimizing disruptions to incumbent systems and ensuring a timely completion of the 800 MHz rebanding process. 2) Discussed the population coverage of its current 800 MHz licenses and provided the WTB staff with the attached documents regarding this issue. |
|
|
Focus of filing: First meeting by Nextel to discuss the R&O. Issues included: 1) Nextel to review the R&O 2) Process set forth in the R&O for realigning the 800 MHz band, interference protection standards, and possible constraints on Nextel’s use of its 900 MHz licensed spectrum during the 800 MHz rebanding process. |