Modeling important in MPE solution
Dear Editor,
In your article, “Countdown to
MPE rules” (RCR, March 15), the reader is left with the impression that field-testing is the ultimate solution to
the problem. This is definitely not the case. Field-testing gives a snapshot picture of the roof top RF environment. As
various RF sources duty cycle on and off, this snap shot represents only one possible environment. Since the
environment may be dynamic in nature, I believe the only way to properly analyze the risk is to do computer modeling.
A complete RF Safety Plan, performed by qualified personnel, should include both field testing and modeling.
Measurements do have a place in compliance efforts, but I believe the article improperly emphasized the role
measurements can play in compliance.
I thank RCR for addressing the issue. There has not be a lot of press
coverage on the topic, and as everyone can see (with thanks to your article) there are many issues and much work ahead
to be done to bring sites into compliance with the rules.
Richard P. Biby, P.E.
Vice President of
Engineering
Sitesafe L.L.C.
Nextel just wants level playing field
Dear Editor:
I was always under the
impression that as a member of the First Estate it is your duty to present to your readers factual, unbiased reporting of
news. I am disheartened to say that when it comes to having one of your reporters, Jeffrey Silva, cover news involving
Nextel, that has not always been the case. Time and again Mr. Silva’s reporting, if you can call it that, has been
peppered with one-sided coverage and editorial comment prejudiced against Nextel.
Take your March 8 issue as the
most recent example. Mr. Silva, in his articles concerning the 1995 consent decree, portrays Nextel as a boastful SMR
giant bent on dominating its position in the dispatch market. Nothing could be further from the truth. We compete as a
provider of cellular, data and dispatch service. Yes, we are seeking relief from a decree that has become outdated by
regulatory, technological and marketplace changes that have transpired since its creation. Why? To be able to compete
fairly in today’s wireless industry.
As editor of the self-described weekly newspaper of the wireless industry it
should come as no surprise to you that our industry is going through a period of rapid and complex change. New
products, new services, new domestic and international alliances, almost weekly mergers and spinoffs all are presenting
new, demanding challenges to both the competitors in the wireless communications industry and the regulatory
environment in which they operate. What seemed to have made sense just a few years ago may now, in fact, be
unreasonable, even unjust.
The wireless industry has been transformed during the past few years and so has Nextel.
No longer are we merely a provider of local dispatch service but now one of three nationwide wireless communications
companies providing a full suite of wireless products and services to compete with the real giants of the industry,
AT&T and Sprint, and the other cellular and PCS providers. What we are asking the Justice Department to do is free us
from competitive constraints that bind no other competitor today in the wireless industry. Judging by what Mr. Silva
has written, you would think we were trying to trample competition when, in fact, what we are asking the Justice
Department to do is provide a level playing field in the wireless industry in which we can fairly compete.
Daniel F.
Akerson
Chairman & CEO
Nextel Communications Inc.
