Navini Response (Apr 26, 2002)

0008-EX-ML-2002 Text Documents

Navini Networks

2002-06-21ELS_56702

                          Fism &« RICHARDSON P.C.                                                   6o1 Thirteenth Street N.w.
                                                                                                    Washington, pc 20005

                                                                                                    Telephone
  Frederick P. Fish                                                                                 202 783—5070
         1855—1930    April 26, 2002
                                                                                                    Facsimile
 W.K. Richardson                                                                                    202 783—2331
          1859—1951

                      Charles Iseman                                                                Web Site
                                                                                                    www.fr.com
                      Deputy Chief
                      Electromagnetic Compatibility Division
                      Office of Engineering and Technology
                      Federal Communications Commussion
                      445 Twelfth Street, S.W.
                      Washington, D.C. 20445

                              Re:      Complaint filed by Dallas MDS Against Navini Networks, Inc.
                                       Experimental License WB2XJK
            ®         Dear Mr. Iseman:
          BOSTON

          DALLAS
                               This letter responds to a March 28, 2002 letter, sent on behalf of Dallas
       DELAWARE
                      MDS concerning the issue of whether, pursuant to the condition on its
       NEW YORK
                      experimental license, Navini properly obtained consent from MDS and/or ITFS
      SAN DIEGO       operators. Navini has only recently obtained this letter and takes this opportunity
 SILICON VALLEY       to reply.
    TWIN CITIES


wWASHINGTON, DC
                              Dallas MDS takes issue with what it believes to be the staff‘s position that
                      Navini satisfied the license condition by notifying and obtaining consents from co—
                      channel licensees. Citing regulations in Part 21, Dallas MDS argues that consents
                      should also have been obtained from adjacent channel licensees.

                               The emphasis on Part 21 regulations obscures the fact that Navini did not
                      obtain a Part 21 license but rather an experimental license under Part 5. The
                      considerations are obviously different. A license under Part 21 is a grant of
                      authority to provide a communications service on a continuing basis. There are no
                      restrictions on length of transmissions or on the purpose of transmissions. In a
                      licensed service, interference disputes can be complicated to resolve because both
                      parties have equities and there are orderly, time—consuming administrative
                      processes that must be endured. Under such circumstances, because it is desirable
                      to avoid the administrative process to resolve interference issues in advance, it is
                      natural that there is a specified technical standard that MDS licensees must meet
                      to prevent interference to operations on adjacent channels.

                       But experimental licensees operate under different standards. They may not
                      provide a communications service (unless specifically permitted to do so) or any
                      service of a continuing nature (Sec. 5.83(a)). Their operation is restricted only to
                      the experimental purpose for which the license was granted (Sec. 15 111(a)).
                      They may cause no interference to others. Should there be interference, regardless


      Esn & RICHARDSsON P.C.

April 26, 2002
Charles Iseman
Page 2


of whatever technical parameters an experimental system might meet,
transmissions must cease (See. 15.11(b)) and the staff has the authority to halt
experimental transmissions at any time (See Section 5.83(b)).

         Based on the foregoing, Navini believes the staff would be entirely correct
to find that Navini had no obligation to obtain consents from adjacent channel
licensees prior to operation.

        Moreover, it must be emphasized that there still has been no evidence of
interference provided by Dallas MDS. In its March 28 letter, Dallas MDS merely
concludes that because the Navini transmitter is not co—located with the Dallas
MDS transmitter, Navini‘s transmissions "will result" in harmful interference.
But it is not axiomatic as Dallas MDS apparently presumes that merely because
transmitters are not co—located, there will be interference. Were that the case, the
Part 21 regulations would mandate co—location, and they do not. As we explained
in our March 2002, reply to the Dallas MDS complaint, the original allegation of
interference is based on information obtained six months before Navini‘s
experimental transmissions began. Thus, however possible it may be that there
can be interference, and whatever presumptions Dallas MDS has made, there is
simply no evidence of interference.

        Naturally, as an experimental licensee, Navini is sensitive to its
obligations under the rules and has committed itself to experimental activities that
are benign to its neighbors. Should Navini become aware that it has interfered
with any licensed service, including Dallas MDS, it will — as it must under the
rules — immediately cease operations until it has resolved the problem.

         In the meantime, however, Navini requests that the Commission expedite
its consideration of the instant complaint and dismiss it forthwith.


                                                              Very
                                                                U;UIZ/V


                                                              RobertJ




ce:     James Stenger
        Carl Huie
        Brian Sutton
        James Burtle



Document Created: 2002-06-21 12:43:53
Document Modified: 2002-06-21 12:43:53

© 2026 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC