Letters

GWEC information: I was reading about the Global Wireless Education Consortium (GWEC) in the August 1997 “News” section, and after looking back over the article several times, I realized that the article gave no information on how to contact the GWEC. So my question is how can someone reach the GWEC? If you could pass that information along in a future issue of MRT, I, and perhaps some other readers, would appreciate it.

John Niles Maintenance engineer 360 degree Communications Cedar Rapids, IA

The Global Wireless Education Consortium’s (GWEC) address:

Misty C. Baker Executive director GWEC P.O. Box 1269 Mankato, MN 56002-1269 Telephone: 507-345-8713

Electronic design: A great part of my time is concentrated on learning all about new technologies. I would like to hear from people and companies, whether public or involved in the natural evolution of paging technology from the beginning to voice, numeric and alphanumeric, and “graphic” paging, capable of displaying email, fax messages and graphic information on dedicated pager units.

Carlos Bolanos Technical coordinator Citycom, Tijuana, Mexico Camino Maquiladora 69330 San Ysidro, CA 92173

Open letter to the specialized mobile radio industry: The release of the long-awaited 800MHz Report and Order unshackles an industry restricted by more than three years of license freezes. The impact of the 800MHz proceeding has been dramatic on PCIA’s Specialized Mobile Radio Alliance (SMRA) council members, who have spent hundreds of hours debating and working on this item.

Now that the full text of the new Report and Order has been released, the 800MHz industry has an important question to ask itself: Are the new rules workable? In fact, it may not make much difference how the commission decides to license the “white space” if one accepts the notions that: (1) all of the valuable spectrum already is licensed; (2) the new rules permitting incumbent modifications are acceptable as long as the original contour is not exceeded (22dBu for the Upper 200 channels, 18dBu for the Lower 80 and General Category channels); (3) Upper 200 channel incumbents cannot be moved to lower channelswithout truly equivalent spectrum, and the change will be at the auction winner’s expense; and (4) the auction winner must protect the incumbent from interference.

Once this question has been answered, issues involving the minutia of the order must be addressed. For instance, the auction rules do not include adequate anti-speculator protections, nor do the rules address how an incumbent subject to mandatory relocation will be compensated while its network goes “dark” during the auction winner’s modification of the system. The order also fails to explain whether the licensed ERP, or the maximum allowed ERP, should be used in calculating the existing contour.

SMR industry leaders are in agreement that the order should be challenged at the commission and not in court. The FCC has covered its bases in this order, and it is unlikely that a court will vacate part or all of the order, since courts give considerable deference to agency rulings. A court challenge will merely impose additional unnecessary delays in the implementation of viable business plans that have been held in abeyance for years. Even if the industry were successful in court, the FCC would then have to conduct yet another rulemaking proceeding, resulting in even more delays for the SMR industry. All these considerations do not even touch upon the high cost of any litigation, and even after spending the considerable time and resources required to litigate, the industry may still be without new rules for many years.

PCIA and its SMRA members look forward to working with the industry and the commission to create implementation rules and guidelines that will best serve the SMR industry as we move forward.

Jay Kitchen President Personal Communications Industry Association