"This interference stems from now 30-year-
old FCC spectrum management decisions and unanticipated technical
developments, coupled with the extraordinary growth of wireless
communications in America. It's an FCC problem, and the FCC has the
authority and the responsibility to address it."
---------------------------------------
Your April 19 page-one article "Interference Call: Nextel's Maneuver
for Wireless Rights Has Rivals Fuming" fails to address the substance
of the issue before the Federal Communications Commission. Contrary
to the impression we believe is left by your article, public safety
radio interference is real, it is serious and resolving it is of
paramount importance. As a long-standing service provider to public
safety and in light of the ever-increasing critical nature of public
safety communications, Nextel responded constructively to work toward
a permanent solution.
The FCC record on interference is thorough and crystal clear. Yet,
your article ignores the substantial documentation on the
contributions to interference by Alltel, AT&T Wireless, Cingular and
Verizon Wireless to focus only on Nextel. This blatant omission then
shapes the rest of your story. Public safety radio interference is an
important matter impacting the safety, security and survival of first
responders and their ability to safeguard the citizens they serve,
and the interference is caused by all of the 800 MHz wireless
carriers mentioned above. This interference stems from now 30-year-
old FCC spectrum management decisions and unanticipated technical
developments, coupled with the extraordinary growth of wireless
communications in America. It's an FCC problem, and the FCC has the
authority and the responsibility to address it.
More than two years ago, the FCC recognized the significance of
public safety interference and stated its goals: to eliminate the
interference and to provide much-needed additional spectrum to public
safety. Since then, only one proposal presented to the FCC achieves
its goals: The Consensus Plan will permanently eliminate
interference, provide the needed spectrum for public safety and cost
American taxpayers nothing. In contrast, you failed to mention that
filings from opponents of this plan have offered nothing new to solve
the problem, have waffled on their positions in filing after filing,
and, most recently, have demanded that the spectrum required by the
Consensus Plan to fix the problem instead be auctioned with no
benefit to public safety -- all attempts to derail progress on this
critical issue.
One of the largest segments of Nextel's customer base is the public
sector. Therefore, it is to be expected that our relationship with
public safety is multidimensional. We are proud to partner with
public safety agencies, organizations and officials on the Consensus
Plan or anywhere else we see an occasion to be of assistance. And, we
find it troubling that the Journal failed to examine the motivations
behind those who oppose the Consensus Plan. We at Nextel believe the
opposition is making a concerted effort to recast the Consensus Plan
solution for public safety interference as a corporate battle over
competitive advantage.
Elizabeth R. Brooks
Vice President
Corporate Communications
Nextel Communications Inc.
Reston, Va. |
