800 MHz Rebanding Information

FCC Memorandum Opinion and Order of de novo review from Wave 1, Phase 1 Mediation

2006-11-06T14:22:00.000-05:00

The FCC recently released a Memorandum Opinion and Order in the matter of Montgomery County and Sprint Nextel 800 MHz Rebanding Mediation. This document should be read by all Public Safety organizations who are currently going through the rebanding process as it provides a window into the thought process of both Sprint Nextel and the FCC. (Click here to for a copy of the FCC's O. & O.)

As you can see from reading the O. & O., RCC was deeply involved in helping Montgomery County throughout the rebanding process. If you've been reading this blog, you know that RCC's approach to rebanding puts the needs of Public Safety first and focuses on developing a strategy for the 800 MHz Rebanding and a rebanding plan and rebanding estimate to implement that strategy.

The rebanding plan is designed to assure the licensee of a disruption free transition to comparable facilities. In support of this plan, RCC has long emphasized putting together an overwhelming record of facts and analysis in support of the rebanding plan. As you can see from the O. & O., no activity is too small to be challenged by Sprint / Nextel, so you must be prepared to provide support for all elements of the rebanding plan and of the rebanding estimate.

RCC can attest from working with Montgomery County and many other Organizations that creating this overwhelming record is not easy and takes time and both technical expertise and business sense. However, quotes from the O.& O. such as "The County has sufficiently explained the factors that entered into its analysis and Sprint's arguments in rebuttal are not persuasive" show the value of creating this record.

Please take the time to read the opinion and order as it should be very helpful to all Public Safety agencies. As always, feel free to contact us at reband@rcc.com should you want a more detailed explanation of the impacts that this may have on your rebanding efforts.

800 MHz Transition Adminstrator, LLC Quarterly Reports

2006-11-06T14:15:00.000-05:00

Well, the 800 MHz T.A. has issued its quarterly reports for 6/30/06 and 9/30/06. You can download a copy here. Lot's of information to digest but at first glance, I don't see any information on cash flow to licensees (would be very interesting to see how much has been paid out so far). You can see there has been 54 million in T.A. fees and 3.5 million in BearingPoint fees (non-TA) from Nextel for six months.

As we read it more carefully, I'll be sure to give you more of our thoughts.

Wave 3, Stage 2

2006-10-24T09:33:00.000-04:00

The FCC issued a release yesterday announcing that the reconfiguration for Wave 3, Stage 2 licensees will start on November 1, 2006. That date is also the deadline for submitting RFPFs.

Where is the 2nd Quarter T.A. Report?

2006-10-08T12:21:00.000-04:00

Has anyone seen the 2nd Quarter T.A. Report??? According to an article in the October 6th, MRT Bulletin, sources were quoted as saying that the report was in the commissions hands for a few weeks. They speculate that the news can't be good if the commission is not releasing the report. As soon as it comes out we will have a short analysis of the report and any implications.

FCC Extends Wave 1 Negotiations Extension

2006-06-09T14:36:00.000-04:00

The FCC extended the mandatory negotiation period for NPSPAC licensees from July 31, 2006 to October 31, 2006.

The revised timelines are shown below.

Mandatory Negotiations: May 1, 2006 - October 31, 2006
Alternative Dispute Resolution: November 1, 2006 - December 14, 2006

The FCC also indicated that this extension would not affect the overall schedule and deadlines fir the 800 MHz Reconfiguration (although it is hard to still believe that more extensions will not follow for other waves/stages).

Great article on 800 MHz Rebanding

2006-04-10T16:17:00.000-04:00

Liz Sachs wrote a very nice article in the April 2006 Mission Critical Communications magazine regarding the 800 MHz rebanding process. It highlights several "warning signs" of the contentious nature of the process, specifically the repeated statements by the FCC and TA that nay money spent planning for or implementing system reconfiguration would be "at risk" for reimbursement unless and until approve by Sprint Nextel and the TA.

Also noted in the article is the frustration of many licensees on the amount of discussion and hoops that incumbents have to go through for their cost estimates.

Here are several interesting quotes from the article:

* "The emphasis on the "at-risk" rule probably was the first warning sign that the process might prove more contentious than anticipated. The FCC and the TA repeatedly advised incumbents that any money spent planning for or implementing system reconfiguration would be "at risk" for reimbursement unless and until approved by Sprint Nextel and the TA."

* "...many incumbents heard the message as meaning that they wouldn't necessarily be reimbursed for all costs as promised by the FCC, but only for those approved by Sprint Nextel and the TA.

* "The problem was exacerbated by the hyper-analytical methodology applied to the estimated costs that incumbents must have approved as part of their frequency reconfiguration agreements or planning funding agreements."

* "Because they will be documented, reconciled, and perhaps even audited at the tru-up before closing, many incumbents are bewildered and frustrated by the time and costs being devoted to counting these "angels on the head of a pin""

* "Unless Sprint Nextel or the TA or both believe that incumbents plan to pad documented expenses by including work that was not done, overstating the number of hours worked, or some other fraudulent means, and hope to forestall that by challenging the figures in advance, it is difficult to understand the purpose of the cost-estimation gauntlet incumbents are forced to run."

* "There is something mightily wrong with the process if almost 100 Wave 1 channel 1 - 120 incumbents were not able to reach agreements with Sprint Nextel and ended in mediation"

I could go on and on, but you should get a copy of the April 2006 MissionCritical Communications magazine and read the entire article. You'll be glad you did.

Interesting Filing from the Enterprise Wireless Alliance

2006-04-06T15:34:00.000-04:00

This is a very interesting filing from the Enterprise Wireless Alliance regarding Nextel's opposition to the argument that 800 MHz incumbent licensee is entitled to recover cost beyond mediation. Click here to review this filing

The filing does an excellent job of highlighting the issues with Nextel's assertions. Please read this filing and understand its implications for you. Feel free to contact RCC if you would like to discuss the implication for you! This is an important issue and if you feel strongly on it, we would suggest that you file comments of your own to the FCC.

Click here for instructions on how to file comments with the FCC.

FCC Approves Delay To Start of Negotiation Period for NPSPAC Wave 2 and 3

2006-04-02T15:17:00.000-04:00

The FCC has approved the proposed changes to the schedule for the start of the negotiation periods for NPSPAC licensees in Wave 2 and Wave 3. Click here to read the Public Notice.

There was no mention of the issue of extending the Wave 1 dates nor was there any indication regarding the freeze.

Transition Administrator Proposes Potential Rebanding Rescheduling

2006-03-30T14:13:00.000-05:00

The TA submitted a letter to the FCC regarding potential rebanding rescheduling. Click here to read the letter.

The proposed changes to the schedule are as follows:

* NPSPAC Wave 1 Stage 2 mandatory negotiation time be extended from July 31, 2006 to October 31, 2006
*Vountary negotiations for Wave 2, Stage 2 and Wave 3 Stage 2 would be changed to start on August 1, 2006 and November 1, 2006 respectively.

It would seem (although its not specifically stated) that this action would extend the licensing freeze in waves 1, 2 and 3 which would be a problem for licensees who are restricted from making a change during this time period.

800 MHz TA Guidelines For Coverage Testing

2006-03-14T13:12:00.000-05:00

The 800 MHz Transition Administrator has released a "Fact Sheet" providing licensees guidelines with respect to when drive testing may or may not be appropriate. In general, the TA states that only "complex systems using simulcast technology or where extensive changes are made to the antenna and other transmission subsystems elements" should require drive testing.

The full fact sheet can be found here.

I think its best to note that the TA realizes that there are a wide varity of systems and that there may be cases where drive testing is appropriate for other system configurations, not just complex simulcast systems. Obviously, a well documented, technically appropriate rational for the need for drive testing will be required. You should be prepared to prove that drive testing is the only appropriate method for determining comparability of your system. If you believe that drive testing is necessary for your system, be sure that you have the appropriate technical expertise to explain why the other methods are not appropriate and that drive testing is required.

If you have any questions on whether your system may or may not require drive testing, please feel free to email us at reband@rcc.com for more information.

FCC Extends Wave 4 Voluntary Negotiation Start Date

2006-03-03T14:05:00.000-05:00

The FCC announced today (click ">here) that they have extended the start of Wave 4 by three months. The voluntary negotiation period is to begin on July 3, 2006 (from April 3, 2006). This is due to the ongoing border issues that RCC first highlighted in our submission to the FCC.

Please note, that as of this time, there is no change to the required rebanding completion date.

Rebanding problems out in the open

2006-03-01T13:49:00.000-05:00

Donny Jackson wrote a great article for MRT that was released on 2/1/2006 that talks about the continued problems with the 800 MHz Rebanding process. (Click here to read the article) RCC's own Carl Aron was quoted several times in the article highlighting some of the issues that we have seen in the rebanding process (also documented in the RCC "Pandora Filing"). Some of the key issues / quotes in the article are:

"Anxiety about the 800 MHz rebanding process continued to escalate throughout January, when increased public evidence emerged that many licensee/Sprint Nextel negotiations are not working as designed, and public-safety representatives asked the FCC to intervene in an effort to correct the situation."
"During the past month, 65 licensees operating in Channels 1-120 that failed to reach a negotiated reconfiguration agreement with Sprint Nextel entered mediation, Sprint Nextel spokesman Tim O'Regan said. "
"O'Regan said Sprint Nextel had approved only four of 28 planning-funding requests as of late January, noting that many licensees failed to provide appropriate detail in their requests. "
“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?”
"Robert Gurss, director of legal and government affairs for the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO), expressed similar frustration that planning-funding requests have “evolved into a very detailed, very nickel-and-dime process” with relatively little money actually reaching public-safety entities"
“Before [public-safety entities] can negotiate a reconfiguration agreement, they need to do a fair amount of planning to determine how best to do that — so they don't disrupt their operations and [do] maintain interoperability — and they don't have the funds to do that,” Gurss said. “If that gets stalled, which it is, then it's going to be hard for public-safety entities to meet the schedules that people want to meet.”
"TA Deputy Project Manager Brett Haan said that the slow pace of requests for planning funding is “undeniably an issue” but one he believes is “solvable.”"
"The displeasure expressed by public-safety groups concerning the rebanding process was quite tame compared to the harsh criticism levied by RCC Consultants in a 143-page filing made weeks earlier. In the self-described “Pandora filing,” RCC Consultants, citing numerous public-safety clients, raised myriad potential issues, including the negative impact rebanding could have on licensees that are not relocated and the need for a plan to ensure that vehicular repeater systems are maintained without cost to operators."
"This is about improving public-safety communications; it's not about saving money for Nextel,” said Carl Aron of RCC Consultants. “The name of the proceeding is ‘Improving Public-Safety Communications;’ the name of the proceeding is not, ‘Let's make sure Nextel doesn't bust its budget in rebanding."
“If these systems don't work properly, someone will die. That's really what's at stake here.” - Carl Aron
"O'Regan said the betterment of public-safety communications always has been the carrier's priority."
Aron said Sprint Nextel's actions in the negotiating process belie such statements. He noted that some proposals made by his clients have been rejected on the grounds that they cost too much, rather than being considered based on their necessity to maintain public-safety communications.
“There's a theme here: Pay less,” RCC's Aron said. “I don't think Nextel's positions are driven by any principle other than ‘pay less.’”

This is a very enlightening article and one that every licensee should read and be aware of. It's only by a frank, open and honest discussion of the issues, can we come up with fair and equitable solutions that ensure that Public Safety Communications are improved and the public is not exposed to any additional risks as a result of the rebanding process.

A copy of the article shown below.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebanding problems out in the open

Feb 1, 2006 12:00 PM
BY DONNY JACKSON

Anxiety about the 800 MHz rebanding process continued to escalate throughout January, when increased public evidence emerged that many licensee/Sprint Nextel negotiations are not working as designed, and public-safety representatives asked the FCC to intervene in an effort to correct the situation.

(Editor's Note: At press time, the Transition Administrator team that is overseeing the rebanding process issued new procedures for licensees seeking funding for planning activities. For full details go to www.mrtmag.com.)

During the past month, 65 licensees operating in Channels 1-120 that failed to reach a negotiated reconfiguration agreement with Sprint Nextel entered mediation, Sprint Nextel spokesman Tim O'Regan said. Licensees disagreeing with the findings of the TA mediator can appeal their case to the FCC, but the agency has issued a public notice that the licensee must pay all costs associated with such an appeal (see timeline).

Meanwhile, most Wave 1 public-safety entities were preparing to enter into the voluntary negotiation phase scheduled to begin Feb. 1 without promised funding for planning, which many believe to be critical for the efficient and orderly rebanding of frequencies.

O'Regan said Sprint Nextel had approved only four of 28 planning-funding requests as of late January, noting that many licensees failed to provide appropriate detail in their requests. Meanwhile, many public-safety officials and consultants working on rebanding questioned the level of detailed documentation being required at such a preliminary stage.

“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?”

Robert Gurss, director of legal and government affairs for the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO), expressed similar frustration that planning-funding requests have “evolved into a very detailed, very nickel-and-dime process” with relatively little money actually reaching public-safety entities. As a result, such agencies are having to front money for planning or else not embark on planning for reconfiguration, scenarios that were not envisioned by the FCC when it approved rebanding in July 2004.

“Before [public-safety entities] can negotiate a reconfiguration agreement, they need to do a fair amount of planning to determine how best to do that — so they don't disrupt their operations and [do] maintain interoperability — and they don't have the funds to do that,” Gurss said. “If that gets stalled, which it is, then it's going to be hard for public-safety entities to meet the schedules that people want to meet.”

With this in mind, APCO and five other public-safety groups made a Jan. 12 filing with the FCC citing several problems with the planning-funding process.

“We believe the commission must be proactive in addressing these issues,” the filing stated. “The TA may also need to be a more active participant in order to drive the process forward. We cannot afford to allow this critical rebanding process to stall or for public-safety agencies to be forced into unreasonable or unsafe band-reconfiguration agreements.”

TA Deputy Project Manager Brett Haan said that the slow pace of requests for planning funding is “undeniably an issue” but one he believes is “solvable.”

“As long as the costs are reasonable and prudent, I don't think there should be significant issues,” Haan said. “I think the attention being placed on it now highlights the importance of it, and I have faith that all parties are going to work to resolve this very quickly.”

The displeasure expressed by public-safety groups concerning the rebanding process was quite tame compared to the harsh criticism levied by RCC Consultants in a 143-page filing made weeks earlier. In the self-described “Pandora filing,” RCC Consultants, citing numerous public-safety clients, raised myriad potential issues, including the negative impact rebanding could have on licensees that are not relocated and the need for a plan to ensure that vehicular repeater systems are maintained without cost to operators.

But at the heart of the lengthy document is the notion that the TA and Sprint Nextel are so focused on scheduling and monetary issues that they are failing to fulfill the mission found in the title of the FCC's order: “Improving Public-Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band.”

“This is about improving public-safety communications; it's not about saving money for Nextel,” said Carl Aron of RCC Consultants. “The name of the proceeding is ‘Improving Public-Safety Communications;’ the name of the proceeding is not, ‘Let's make sure Nextel doesn't bust its budget in rebanding.’”

Aron said the disconnect in negotiations stems from the fact that Nextel is a profit-oriented company and that those representing public-safety entities are charged with protecting first responders, as well as the residents and communities they serve, regardless of the cost.

“[Sprint Nextel] comes from the commercial side of life, not the life-and-death side of life, and that perspective is gigantically different,” Aron said. “If the Nextel system goes down, life is like that — maybe a taxicab won't get properly dispatched. That's not what happens when an officer is being fired on. That radio has to work every time, without fail — no discussion.

“If these systems don't work properly, someone will die. That's really what's at stake here.”

O'Regan said the betterment of public-safety communications always has been the carrier's priority.

“Nextel, and now Sprint Nextel, has been saying that this whole matter begins and ends with public safety — specifically eliminating the interference to them,” O'Regan said. “We remain committed to that goal and will continue to be, right through to the end of the reconfiguration process.”

Aron said Sprint Nextel's actions in the negotiating process belie such statements. He noted that some proposals made by his clients have been rejected on the grounds that they cost too much, rather than being considered based on their necessity to maintain public-safety communications.

“There's a theme here: Pay less,” RCC's Aron said. “I don't think Nextel's positions are driven by any principle other than ‘pay less.’”

This philosophy is underscored in other tactics used by Sprint Nextel in negotiations, Aron said. He suggested that the carrier hides behind the TA when it doesn't want to do what a licensee wants, but then balks anyway when the licensee suggests letting the TA determine whether the request is appropriate.

“So, it's a game,” Aron said.

In response, Nextel's O'Regan said, “Sprint Nextel takes its commitments extremely seriously regarding negotiations on 800 MHz reconfiguration, and we strongly object to any allegations that somehow we do not play fair with licensees.”

Nevertheless, Aron said many of his public-safety clients have expressed concern that many of the expenses incurred in rebanding would not be paid by Sprint Nextel, meaning the public-safety entity would have to bear the cost burden or the proposed item would not be done — perhaps at the risk of system performance degradation.

TA officials repeatedly have expressed the notion that their goal is to be fair to all parties involved in the rebanding proceeding. Aron acknowledged that no licensee should seek payments for costs not associated with rebanding, but said the mindset accompanying negotiations should be altered to reflect a public-safety-centric viewpoint.

“I don't think there should be guidance on costs,” Aron said. “I think the proper way to go about this is for the TA to say … the only thing you're allowed to argue about is the cost of implementing the licensee's plan — not the plan that Nextel would prefer, but the plan that the licensee determined was necessary for the maintenance of the public-safety system.”

But Haan noted that the FCC's rebanding order calls for rebanding agreements — including planning-funding agreements — to be the result of private negotiations, and the TA will not intervene unless the licensee or Sprint Nextel asks. And public-safety entities have sought the TA's intervention in this manner only recently, he added.

“We want to encourage private-party negotiations with Nextel,” Haan said. “But at any time, either party can request facilitation … and then we can become part of the process. Until a party asks for facilitation, we are assuming that the negotiations between the parties are proceeding at their schedule.”

800 MHz Transition Administrator Quarterly Progress Report - December 31, 2005

2006-02-23T12:13:00.000-05:00

Today the 800 MHz T.A. issued its quarterly report for the quarter ended December 31, 2005. These quarterly reports make for some very interesting reading and I would suggest that everyone involved in rebanding should download the document and read it. Click here to go to the RCC Rebanding Resources webpage to download a copy of the document.

Several interesting points from the report are:

While the quarterly report is for Oct - Dec 2005, additional results are show for dates up to 2/21/06
The mandatory negotiation period for Wave 1 Stage 1 ended on December 26, 2006 with 172 out of a total 369 licensee agreements being referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR")
By February 21, 2006 (the day before the report was released), "47 percent of all Channels 1 - 120 agreements have reached resolution."
"Pursuant to the FCC's letter to the TA dataed January 31, 2006, the TA is currently evaluating whether adjustments to the reconfiguration schedule are warranted."
"Through December 31, 2005, the TA received 84 completed FRAs for Wave 2, Stage 1 (Channels 1 - 120) licensees out of an expected total of 232 FRAs."
"2005 ended without disbursement of planning funds of any significance to Public Safety"

There are number of tables available in the document detailing application milestones by wave, location etc. You should check it out and see what is going on in your wave.

TA releases Reconfiguration Handbook 2.0

2006-02-21T13:30:00.000-05:00

From PR Newswire (Click here)

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- The 800 MHz Transition Administrator, LLC ("TA") today announced the publication of Release 2.0 of the 800 MHz Band Reconfiguration Handbook. The document is available on the TA's website (http://www.800ta.org/) both in a practical Online Reference Guide and as a complete PDF document available for download.

The guidelines provided in the Handbook are designed to support reasonable and prudent reconfiguration planning activities while conforming to the FCC's requirements. The Handbook provides background information on 800 MHz Band Reconfiguration and an overview of the Regional Prioritization Plan. It describes:

* The roles of the TA, Sprint Nextel and licensees
* The activities associated with planning for reconfiguration
* The steps required to execute a Planning Funding Agreement (PFA) or
Frequency Reconfiguration Agreement (FRA) with Sprint Nextel
* Guidelines for allowable costs and reimbursement
* The payment process and funding guidelines
* Contact information for the TA and Sprint Nextel

The TA has updated the guidance in the Handbook based on FCC's October 5, 2005 Memorandum Opinion and Order, most notably the modified Atlanta area Band plan and additional information for Non-Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) Economic Area (EA) Licensees. The Handbook contains revised graphics and more direct links to documents referenced in the text. It also provides more complete discussions on the Payment Process, the revised Request for Planning Funding process, and the Reconfiguration Implementation Phase, along with a new section on Fraud, Waste, and Abuse. Other policy additions and revisions previously reflected on the website have also been incorporated.

"The TA continues to provide guidance to facilitate the affected community's ability of all stakeholders to achieve the goals of 800 MHz Reconfiguration," said Brett Haan, Director, 800 MHz Transition Administrator. "The publication of Release 2.0 of the Handbook represents many improvements to the TA processes and policies that have been influenced by lessons learned in the first eight months of this multi-year program. Our guidance will continue to evolve in this complex, nationwide program."

---------------------------------------------

To download a copy of the newly release Reconfiguration Handbook, go to the Rebanding Resources webpage at www.rcc.com/rebanding/resources.htm

Utah Communications Agency Network (UCAN) Has Approved Planning Funding Agreement with Nextel

2006-02-14T11:43:00.000-05:00

On Feb. 14th, Sprint Nextel announced that the TA has approved the planning funding agreement with UCAN. The TA indicated that this is the first planning funding agreement with a "significant" public safety entity. (That in itself actually says a lot!!)

Click here to read the complete story as reported in MRT.

Interestingly enough, the MRT story indicates that "Contrary to some reports, UCAN did not use the TA template, but rebanding officials agree that other licensees should be encouraged that an agreement could be reached on such a large system. "

(UPDATE: The TA Quarterly report issued on 2/22/06 indicates that Utah utilized "key components of the TA's template for planning funding." I'm not sure what "key components" are. In my view, either they used the TA template or they didn't. If they didn't, why not?)

It's interesting that the first deal with a "significant" public safety entity did not use the official process (TA templates), and that it took until February to approve.

What do you think?

800 MHz T.A. announces improvement in the RFPF process

2006-02-01T16:19:00.000-05:00

During a presentation at the APCO 3rd Annual Winter Summit in Orlando, FL, the T.A. announced what they called, an improved process for submitting RFPF. In this new process, the T.A. will take a more active oversight role in the process. Specific changes as detailed in the PR Newswire Release include:

Licensees will initially submit Requests For Planning Funding (RFPF) and supporting documentation directly to the TA. The TA will acknowledge receipt and validate that the request provides the supporting detail requested in established TA policy and guidance.
Once the request is determined to be complete in terms of supporting detail, the TA will forward it to Sprint Nextel, with a communication to both parties requesting that a negotiation schedule be established within 5 business days.
The TA will monitor the progress of all negotiations. If an agreement is not reached within 60 calendar days (measured from the date the TA provides the request to Sprint Nextel) and the parties have not by then entered the mandatory negotiation period, the TA will recommend that the parties submit to TA mediation. If the parties have entered the mandatory negotiations period, then TA mediation will be mandatory

The TA will also be holding an online webinar on February 8th on the Request For Planning Funding Process.

See the announcement from PR Newswire here.

FCC Provides Additional Guidance To 800 Transition Administrator

2006-02-01T10:34:00.000-05:00

It appears that some of the expressions of concern filed with the FCC regarding the progress of the 800 MHz Rebanding gained their attention.

In a letter from the FCC to the 800 Transition Administrator dated January 31st, the FCC provides some additional guidance to the TA on the Rebanding Timetable. The letter specifically mentions the RCC Rebanding Filing, among others and we are happy that the FCC is beginning to move forward on some of our concerns and recommendations.

An interesting item to note is the last bullet in the letter. This bullet states:

"Also at the conclusion of the Wave 1, Phase 1 mediation period, the TA shall provide the Wireless Bureau with its assessment of whether adjustments should be made to other elements of the TA's rebanding schedule. This assessment should include analysis of whether:

(1) changes should be made to the scheduled start of negotiations for future waves;
(2) particular NPSPAC regions should be moved from one wave to another;
(3) the schedule should be adjusted to accommodate negotiations between Sprint and public safety entities concerning planning funding; and
(4) the schedule should be adjusted to accommodate negotiation between Sprint and FA licensees who file new or modified elections in the 20-day election window mourned by the TA on January 11, 2006."

It will be interesting to see what if any recommendations the TA proposes after the conclusing of the Wave 1, Phase 1 mediation period. It is our hope that these recommendations will put the needs of the Public Safety community and those they serve as most important.

It is also our hope, that a similar letter providing guidance to Nextel and the T.A. as to Requests For Planning Funding is issued as well. Your comments to the FCC regarding this and other important issues still to be addressed will help provide the FCC with information and context needed to provide this guidance. Don't delay, submit your comments to the FCC even if it is only a paragraph. As this letter from the FCC proves, YOUR VOICE WILL BE HEARD!.

Click here to download a copy of the FCC's letter to the T.A.

Click here for information on how to comment to the FCC.

2006-01-30T17:45:00.000-05:00

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

Nextel Petitions For Reconsideration

2006-01-28T13:38:00.000-05:00

FYI,

Nextel has submitted a Petition for Reconsideration asking that the FCC "reconsider its decision in the Memorandum Opinion & Order to expand the rights of non-Sprint Nextel, non-SouthernLINK Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) and non-ESMR licensees."

Some of the main points Sprint Nextel state in the letter include:

The MO&O will reduce Sprint Nextel's post-reconfiguration spectrum and ignores the "Value for Value" principle established in the R&O
Expanding ESMR band relocation rights is not necessary to achieve the commision's public interest objectives
Expanding ESMR band relocation rights will create delay and uncertainty

The letter also mentions that there may not be sufficient spectrum to relocate all SMR and ESMR operations. It also expresses concern that the size of Wave 1, which includes as Sprint Nextel states "a disproportionate number of the most complex and congested markets in the country" will make it difficult for Sprint Nextel to meet the 18-month interim reconfiguration progress benchmark.

Click here for a copy of the Sprint Nextel Filing.

USA Today Highlights Issues with 800MHz Rebanding Process

2006-01-16T11:31:00.000-05:00

The January 16th Issues of USA Today, on the front page of the Money section, has a good article on the issues of the 800 MHz Rebanding process.

The main points the reporter hightlights in my opinion are as follows:

Public safety officials and consultants largely blame cost disputes with Sprint Nextel
Sprint Nextel says the disputes were to be expected
The caveat that Sprint Nextel must pay the rebanding costs, even if it is more than the estimated $2.8 billion has prompted the company to dispute nearly all of the dozens of funding requests public-safety agencies have made and not even repond to many of them, says emergency responders and their biggest adviser, RCC Consultants.
Sprint Nextel denies pinching pennies
Public Safety agencies and RCC also assail the project's managers, led by BearingPoint. Despite netting more than $20 million in fees so far, the managers haven't closely monitored negotiations or prodded Sprint Nextel to be more responsive
BearingPoint's Brett Haan, who's overseeing the swap, said the managers "take the concerns of public safety very seriously and are working to makes sure the (project) is fast, fair and efficient."
The FCC is "looking into thesee issues," said spokesman David Fiske

RCC is pleased to see that many of the issues that we raised in our FCC filing (see www.rcc.com/rebanding for more information) are finally getting a more public viewing. We again encourage all those involved in the 800 MHz rebanding process to file comments as well. The more these issues are brought to light, the better the chances of resolving them become!

To read the complete USA Today article, click here.

As always, if you have any questions or comments, please email us at reband@rcc.com

Letter from Public Safety Associations Expressing Concern With the 800 MHz Rebanding Process

2006-01-12T18:06:00.000-05:00

Today the following Public Safety Associtions submitted a letter to the FCC expressing their grave concern with the status of the 800 MHz Rebanding process. Those associations are:

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International
International Association of Chiefs of Police
International Association of Fire Chiefs
Major Cities Chiefs Association
Major County Sheriffs’ Association
National Sheriffs’ Association

Below are some of the key reasons that these associations have heard why the Request For Planning Funding process has stalled.

"We have heard many reasons why the Request for Planning Funding process has stalled, including :

• the lack of timely responses from Sprint Nextel to Requests for Planning Funding;
• the lack of clear guidance from the TA or established precedents to follow;
• a reconfiguration schedule that “front-loaded” heavily populated areas into the first wave;
• significant disputes between major vendors and Sprint Nextel regarding the cost and detail of proposed planning services;
• demands from Sprint Nextel that licensees provide extraordinarily detailed cost estimates, despite the estimates being “not-to-exceed” numbers with a “true-up” process;
• an apparent “disconnect” between Sprint Nextel and the TA regarding what is required or permitted in the Request for Planning Agreement;
• TA forms and procedures that have changed mid-stream;
• vendors who combined reconfiguration tasks into planning estimates or otherwise overestimated costs;
• an apparent lack of understanding by Sprint Nextel of the complexity of public safety systems and the need for detailed and properly managed planning for band reconfiguration;
• an apparent lack of personnel resources devoted by Sprint Nextel to the process;
• the inability of the TA to track negotiations; and
• insufficient knowledge of the process by public safety agency personnel.

Do any of these reasons sound familiar to you???

For a full copy of the letter, click here.

How To Comment To The FCC

2006-01-05T17:04:00.000-05:00

OK, so now you've decided that you want to provide the FCC with your own comments on the 800 MHz Band Reconfiguration. This post will detail the simple method for doing that. Please feel free to post a link in the comments to this post to your comments as well.

Comments to the FCC can be as simple or detailed as you want them to be. You don't have to write a long, detailed letter like RCC did. If you wish, you can just send them a brief letter stating your experiences so far with rebanding and your agreement (or disagreement) with the points mentioned in the RCC submittal.

Comments may be sent to the FCC either by mail or electronically. To send your comments electronically, go to

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

This allows to upload a document file in Word or PDF. The options is also available to send a paragraph or two by typing directly on the upload page. This allows even the most casual and brief comments to be on the record.
The FCC address to send comments via postal mail is as follows:

Ms. Catherine W. Seidel
Acting Chief Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Re: Status of 800 MHz Rebanding (WT Docket 02-55)

Why Comment on RCC's Filing to the FCC?

2006-01-05T16:59:00.000-05:00

Those licensees and agencies should, in their own interest, consider indicating their support for (or disagreement with) the positions taken in the RCC Submission. The Commission is likely to give serious attention to the problems with the 800 MHz Rebanding that adversely affect public safety that are raised in the RCC Submission if and only if the public safety community indicates that:

It believes that RCC Submission has raised important issues in relation to the 800 MHz Rebanding that should be addressed by the Commission; and/or
It shares the concerns expressed in the RCC Submission about the manner in which the 800 MHz Rebanding has unfolded; and/or
It has experiences in relation to the 800 MHz Rebanding which support the concerns expressed in the RCC Submission; and/or
It supports some or all of the solutions proposed in the RCC Submission for the resolution of the problems identified in relation to the 800 MHz Rebanding.

RCC has a long and valued history working with public safety agencies. The RCC Submission was intended as a contribution to the protection of the interests of public safety licensees and agencies in relation the complex and critical 800 MHz Rebanding. RCC believes that that the RCC Submission was necessary to open a frank discussion of the problems with the 800 MHz Rebanding. RCC does not believe that the RCC Submission is alone sufficient to assure that the problems identified are addressed effectively in the interest of the public safety community .

A separate post will detail the process for submitting your own comments to the FCC

RCC Files Letter to FCC Offering Our Insights Into The Realities of the 800 MHz Rebanding Process.

2006-01-05T16:50:00.000-05:00

On December 21, 2005, RCC filed a letter and memorandum with the Federal Communications Commission (the “Commission”) seeking to offer certain insights into the realities of the process of reconfiguring the 800 MHz Band. Click here for a copy of RCC's Filing.

800 MHz public safety licensees and public safety agencies using the facilities of those licensees should consider the RCC Submission. The RCC Submission raises certain problems in relation to effect of the administration of the 800 MHz Rebanding upon public safety licensees and users of 800 MHz public safety radio system. Those problems should be of concern to those licensees and agencies.

The message of the RCC Submission is four-fold:

First, the state of the 800 MHz Rebanding should be considered in relation to its dedication to and achievement of the clearly stated purpose of the Commission in ordering that proceeding: “Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band”;
Second, viewed from the perspective of improving public safety communications in the 800 MHz band, the 800 MHz Rebanding is in serious trouble;
Third, all or substantially all of the many troubles plaguing the 800 MHz Rebanding have their origin in a loss of focus upon or an intentional departure on the part of critical participants in the 800 MHz Rebanding, and, in particular, the TA and Sprint Nextel from (i) the central purpose of the Commission in ordering the 800 MHz Rebanding or (ii) the means provided by the Commission for the achievement of that purpose; and
Fourth, only more active oversight of the 800 MHz Rebanding by the Commission can return that proceeding to its original purpose and see to it that the troubles affecting the 800 MHz Rebanding are effectively addressed.

RCC would encourage you to read the following and potentially provide your own comments to the FCC regarding the position taken in the RCC filing. A separate post will be submitted with RCC's view on why commenting is important. A

As always, should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us at reband@rcc.com

Sprint Nextel Submits Comments on the 800 MHz TA Quarterly Report

2005-12-15T16:12:00.000-05:00

On December 1st (and updated on December 12th), Sprint Nextel submitted comments on the 800 MHz TA Quarterly report discussed in a previous post. For a copy of the submission, click here.

This letter provides the reader with Sprint Nextels view on the status of the 800 MHz Rebanding. Notably, Sprint Nextel states

" Sprint Nextel is doing everything within its control to make 800 MHz band reconfiuration progress as quickly and as efficiently as possible. At the same time, however, there are a number of outside factors which impact Sprint Nextel's ability to unilaterally control band reconfiguration and perform this unprecedented undertaking within the time periods established by the TA"

The document also details some of the progress made by Sprint Nextel so far including:

"More than 1/3 of all Phase I (Channels 1-120) 800 MHz incumbant licensees .... have entered into signed FRAs with Sprint Nextel"
"Forty-three percent of all Wave 1 licensees have entered into signed FRAs with Sprint Nextel..."
"Approximately 60 percent of the ...B/ILT and ... SMR Wave 1 incumbents have signed FRAs with Sprint Nextel...."

In addition, Sprint Nextel also comments that their "projections indicate that as many as 74 incumbents - both private and public safety licensses - may not reach definitive FRAs by December 26, 2005."

Like the TA Quarterly Report, the Sprint Nextel comments contain a great deal of information that should be of interest to anyone involved in the 800 MHz Rebanding process.