Below is an article from MRT's Wavelengths e-Newsletter that provides additional views on the current state of the 800MHz Rebanding Process. A link to the electronic version of the newletter can be found here.
MRT's Wavelengths
FCC needs to provide rebanding direction
By Donny Jackson
January 27, 2006
Next week, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials will conduct its annual Winter Summit, the same event where the Transition Administrator team unveiled its proposed schedule for 800 MHz rebanding.
During last year's meeting, the fundamental aspects of the FCC's rebanding order approved in July 2004 were reiterated -- licensees would relocate to new frequencies in an effort to rid the 800 MHz band of interference, especially interference hampering public-safety communications. Licensees were not supposed to bear any out-of-pocket expenses, as Nextel Communications (now Sprint Nextel) would pay all costs associated with relocation to "comparable facilities."
A year later, these premises must appear laughable to many licensees affected by rebanding. Interference is almost never discussed, and no licensee I've interviewed has received any indication that the costs associated with interference testing before and after rebanding -- to ensure that facilities indeed are comparable -- will be paid by Sprint Nextel.
Meanwhile, out-of-pocket expenses have become a grim reality for licensees in this process. Sprint Nextel says it has approved only four of the 28 planning-funding requests it has received thus far, some of which were filed more than five months ago. Without this funding, licensees are left with two less-than-ideal choices: Fund planning on their own and hope for reimbursement in the future, or halt rebanding plans altogether.
The former is not what the FCC envisioned, and the latter is bad for everyone -- including Sprint Nextel, which needs licensees to plan in a timely manner so that rebanding proceeds smoothly and the carrier does not risk losing the valued 1.9 GHz spectrum it is due to receive in the rebanding deal.
Mind you, these planning funds are subject to a true-up process, so any money disbursed to a licensee but not expended appropriately will have to be returned. But even TA Deputy Project Manager Brett Haan said, "As long as the costs are reasonable and prudent, I don't think there should be significant issues."
Nevertheless, having 85% of all planning-funding requests outstanding certainly is significant. Sprint Nextel says the planning requests submitted were "incomplete," while those representing public-safety licensees claim that the carrier is being too picky at a stage that doesn't warrant such detail.
"We're scrutinizing and auditing estimates," said Andy Maxymillian of Blue Wing Consultants. "I never dreamed there would be this much scrutiny over estimates. For the final payment, we all expect those to be audited and have to prove that ... but how do you prove an estimate?"
Carl Aron of RCC Consultants, which has numerous public-safety clients, said the FCC needs to make a statement that improving public-safety communications is the primary mission, not ensuring that Sprint Nextel does not have to pay more than the $2.5 billion allocated for rebanding.
"Nextel is treating its budget and the 1.9 [GHz spectrum] as if those purposes have equal dignity with public safety, which surely they do not," Aron said. "And I think the TA has, to some degree, fallen for that."
Of course, Sprint Nextel and the TA disagree with such claims. But Aron says Sprint Nextel's focus in rebanding negotiations is on reducing costs, even rejecting items public-safety licensees said they needed solely on the basis of expense. Without being privy to negotiations, it's hard to make judgments.
But one reality has existed from the beginning: rebanding is dependent largely on private negotiations between Sprint Nextel and public-safety licensees. And, typically, negotiations involve a give-and-take process that ultimately ends in compromise.
That formula works well in the business arena, but it may not be appropriate when discussing public safety, where the focus is on saving lives, not dollars. Should the government advocate a process that potentially results in a public-safety entity feeling it is obliged to accept a "compromise" communications system, upon which the lives of first responders and community residents depend? I don't think so.
With this in mind, it's time for the FCC to reaffirm that every aspect of rebanding is designed to improve public-safety communications -- the mission of the July 2004 report and order, based on its title -- and to take actions to ensure that this goal is met, regardless of the cost.
E-mail me at djackson @ prismb2b.com
Source: MRT's e-newsletter Vol 4 No 4 01/27/06
MRT's Wavelengths
FCC needs to provide rebanding direction
By Donny Jackson
January 27, 2006
Next week, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials will conduct its annual Winter Summit, the same event where the Transition Administrator team unveiled its proposed schedule for 800 MHz rebanding.
During last year's meeting, the fundamental aspects of the FCC's rebanding order approved in July 2004 were reiterated -- licensees would relocate to new frequencies in an effort to rid the 800 MHz band of interference, especially interference hampering public-safety communications. Licensees were not supposed to bear any out-of-pocket expenses, as Nextel Communications (now Sprint Nextel) would pay all costs associated with relocation to "comparable facilities."
A year later, these premises must appear laughable to many licensees affected by rebanding. Interference is almost never discussed, and no licensee I've interviewed has received any indication that the costs associated with interference testing before and after rebanding -- to ensure that facilities indeed are comparable -- will be paid by Sprint Nextel.
Meanwhile, out-of-pocket expenses have become a grim reality for licensees in this process. Sprint Nextel says it has approved only four of the 28 planning-funding requests it has received thus far, some of which were filed more than five months ago. Without this funding, licensees are left with two less-than-ideal choices: Fund planning on their own and hope for reimbursement in the future, or halt rebanding plans altogether.
The former is not what the FCC envisioned, and the latter is bad for everyone -- including Sprint Nextel, which needs licensees to plan in a timely manner so that rebanding proceeds smoothly and the carrier does not risk losing the valued 1.9 GHz spectrum it is due to receive in the rebanding deal.
Mind you, these planning funds are subject to a true-up process, so any money disbursed to a licensee but not expended appropriately will have to be returned. But even TA Deputy Project Manager Brett Haan said, "As long as the costs are reasonable and prudent, I don't think there should be significant issues."
Nevertheless, having 85% of all planning-funding requests outstanding certainly is significant. Sprint Nextel says the planning requests submitted were "incomplete," while those representing public-safety licensees claim that the carrier is being too picky at a stage that doesn't warrant such detail.
"We're scrutinizing and auditing estimates," said Andy Maxymillian of Blue Wing Consultants. "I never dreamed there would be this much scrutiny over estimates. For the final payment, we all expect those to be audited and have to prove that ... but how do you prove an estimate?"
Carl Aron of RCC Consultants, which has numerous public-safety clients, said the FCC needs to make a statement that improving public-safety communications is the primary mission, not ensuring that Sprint Nextel does not have to pay more than the $2.5 billion allocated for rebanding.
"Nextel is treating its budget and the 1.9 [GHz spectrum] as if those purposes have equal dignity with public safety, which surely they do not," Aron said. "And I think the TA has, to some degree, fallen for that."
Of course, Sprint Nextel and the TA disagree with such claims. But Aron says Sprint Nextel's focus in rebanding negotiations is on reducing costs, even rejecting items public-safety licensees said they needed solely on the basis of expense. Without being privy to negotiations, it's hard to make judgments.
But one reality has existed from the beginning: rebanding is dependent largely on private negotiations between Sprint Nextel and public-safety licensees. And, typically, negotiations involve a give-and-take process that ultimately ends in compromise.
That formula works well in the business arena, but it may not be appropriate when discussing public safety, where the focus is on saving lives, not dollars. Should the government advocate a process that potentially results in a public-safety entity feeling it is obliged to accept a "compromise" communications system, upon which the lives of first responders and community residents depend? I don't think so.
With this in mind, it's time for the FCC to reaffirm that every aspect of rebanding is designed to improve public-safety communications -- the mission of the July 2004 report and order, based on its title -- and to take actions to ensure that this goal is met, regardless of the cost.
E-mail me at djackson @ prismb2b.com
Source: MRT's e-newsletter Vol 4 No 4 01/27/06
