[Note: the TA Petition is attached at the end.

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Request by the TETRA Association (No docket assigned yet)

For Waiver of Sections 90.209, 90.210 (Not under an Application File No.)
and 2.1043 of the Commission’s Rules

Initial Opposition
to the TETRA Association Waiver Request
Including
Request For Designation of Undersigned Entities as Parties
And
Request for Placement on Public Notice and for Investigation

The undersigned parties share interest in TETRA equipment for their FCC licenses

nationwide and aspects of their coordinated business plans and philanthropy in PMR (Private

Mobile Radio) for smart transportation, energy and environment (the “Skybridge Parties”).1 2

They hereby submit an initial opposition to the “Request” or petition captioned above of the

TETRA Association (“TA”) (the “TA Petition”). This pleading, with the TA Petition attached, is

available by entering in Google “opposition tetra petition.”

1
These Skybridge Parties are known to the FCC staff that deal with PMR licensing and issues,
as shown in their licenses on ULS and their pleadings in various rulemaking, licensing, and other
proceedings. Their involvement in TETRA for their FCC licenses and in support of TETRA for
the US PMR market is also well known and has also been presented to the FCC including in
person in the M-LMS docket 06-49, and in proceedings involving AMTS Auctions. This
involvement is presented to the general PMR and wider markets, for example, at www.tetra-
us.us. This involvement also involved the complaint to ESTI that lead to its years-long
investigation of Motorola’s refusal to license its US patents for TETRA in violation of ETSI IPR
Policy, as reported in part in the website listed above, on the page “ETSI Allenged…” Reasons
that the TA ignores these involvements is indicated herein. The ETSI IPR Policy is discussed by
ETSI here: http://www.etsi.eu/WebSite/document/Legal/ETSI_Guide_on_IPRs.pdf.
2
These coordinated plans are partially described in their FCC pleadings including in the
proceedings noted in footnote 1, and online publications such as those listed in Exhibit 1 hereto.
 Contents

(i) Summary ..................................................................................................... 3

1 Initial Opposition Explanation .................................................................... 3
-- Initial Opposition......................................................................................... 5
2 Procedural Defects...................................................................................... 5
3 Lack of Standing 5
4 Lack of ripeness and futility................................................................. 7
5 Lack of Candor, False Statements, Misleading Statements
and Abuse of Process ........................................................................... 8
6 Grant of the Sought Waivers Cannot Be Assigned;
Waiver Assignments Are Not Allowed Under FCC Rules; and
Suggested Assignments Fail to Meet Standing Requirements............. 12
7 Lack of Notice to Potentially Effected Parties ..................................... 13
8 Lack of Identification of and Certification by the Engineer ................ 13
9 Further Discussion of the Skybridge Parties’
Interest and Purpose in this Matter.............................................................. 14
10 Substantive Defects: Failure to Meet Waiver Standards ............................. 15
11 Request to Designate the Skybridge Parties as Parties................................ 16
12 Request to Place on Public Notice,
and For Investigation, and Not for Dismissal.............................................. 17
-- Declaration .................................................................................................. 20
-- Attachment .................................................................................................. 21

(i) Summary

The Tetra Association (again, the TA) lacks standing to submit the TA Petition. The

Request is unripe and its grant would be futile. The TA lacks candor in and submits a false

premises as foundation for the Request, and misleading, incomplete and conslusory statements in

support. The Petition is thus defective procedurally and subject to dismissal. However, the

Skybridge Parties suggest that the FCC place the TA Petition on Public Notice and also conduct

2
an inquiry into matters raised in or by the Petition. They also request that the FCC designate

them as parties to any proceeding based on the TA Petition.

This filing is submitted under a Declaration under penalty of perjury, to support the facts

alleged. The website www.tetra-us.us, a website of the Skybridge Parties, has not been updated

for most of this year and thus does not reflect some facts and issues presented herein.

1. Initial Opposition Explanation

The Skybridge Parties asked the TA on December 14, 2009 by email3 to provide to the

FCC (in the matter of this TA Petition) and copy the Skybridge Parties certain facts essential to

threshold and other matters of the TA Petition (the “Matters”) that the TA and some persons

related to the TA informed the Skybridge Parties were held by the TA but not yet provided to the

FCC in this captioned matter, or to publicly the US PMR markets generally, or to the Skybridge

Parties.

These facts, the Skybridge Parties have been informed by the TA and TA related parties,

relate to said threshold Matters including any reliable or even speculative evidence contrary to

the publicly disclosed fact that Motorola holds US patents essential for TETRA (“Motorola

TETRA Patents”) and takes the position that no one can obtain any license therefore on any basis

(whether it is on voluntary basis such as under the ETSI standard of “fair reasonably and

nondiscriminatory” or “FRAND” basis, or other basis such asserted in the Skybridge Parties

website listed in footnote 1 hereto, regarding US eminent domain and antitrust law). The soonest

that the Motorola US Patents all expire is in year 2014, according to the review done by the

3
Copies of this request to the TA, as identified to the TA, were sent to with copies to some of its
members that have publicly expressed interest in providing TETRA to the US, and parties
dealing with TETRA for US purposes within the European Technical Standards Institute, also
know as ETSI.
3
Skybridge Parties accessing official ETSI records of the Motorola US Patents.4 Motorola has

stated to the Skybridge Parties and to others in the US PMR market (that reported that to the

undersigned) that any purchase or use of TETRA equipment in the US will be subject to legal

action for infringement of the Motorola TETRA Patents. The TA has never, to the Skybridge

Parties or to their knowledge to any other party publicly or otherwise, shown an evidence

contrary to what is stated in this paragraph. Instead, the TA has regularly told the US PMR

markets, in presentations made in the US, that TETRA is now and for some future time is

blocked in the US for reasons explained in this paragraph.5

The Skybridge Parties asked the TA to provide those Relevant Facts soon, and stated to

the TA that if it elects not to do that, then the undersigned will proceed with a more substantive

filing Opposing the TA Petition. The undersigned does not expect the TA or related parties to

provide those Relevant Facts (since in the past such requested were denied), but the undersigned

asked for them explaining that providing them would decrease contention before the FCC is any

4
Those records are included in the documents that may be downloaded from the “ETSI
Alleged…” page at www.tetra-us.us. The undersigned notes here that the last letter Motorola
wrote to ETSI included on that page as a download asked ETSI to make public (to place on the
ESTI public IPR database) the Motorola letters to ETSI as to the Motorola position to not license
the Motorola TETRA Patents. That is not noted on the above cited page, including in the alerts at
the top, and this should be noted here.
5
The TA adds, as does Motorola to ESTI, that there is a possibility that if the US markets show
enough interest, that one day, under vaguely stated (and clearly not legally binding) conditions.
Motorola—which the TA describes as its “good member,” may chose to amend its blocking and
litigation threat position noted above and accept licensing on some undefined basis of the
Motorola TETRA Patents. Motorola and the TA, and persons in the PRM trade press repeating
them, attempt to turn on its head and speciously portray the Motorola position as follows:
Motorola will license its US patents under those undefined, unscheduled conditions (including
adoption of a US version of TETRA by TIA, resolution of alleged interference issues with P25,
and other matters). But when the undersigned asked the TA repeatedly, and equipment makers
that are active TA members in matters relating to TETRA in the US repeatedly, if any of them
even had, saw or heard of any written statement form Motorola reciting those vague conditions,
they all said “No.” That is specious characterization since it presents a solution that does not
exist and the conditions for which are not defined, even orally, and it ignores the reality which is
that Motorola holds valid US patents for TETRA and indeed currently and for the foreseeable
future refused to license them on fair reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis or to any basis and
threatened those who seek TETRA.
4
of them provided those. The undersigned will in a future filing in this matter, submit that request

and any response to it.

Initial Opposition

2. Procedural Defects

The Skybridge Parties reference and incorporate their comments above, and further state

the following in opposition, as well as to support their requests for party designation, public

notice, and investigation.

While the Skybridge Parties may not oppose some aspects of the TA Petition in their

planned subsequent Opposition, in this Initial Opposition they present a summary as to why is

fundamentally flawed. They informed the TA of their threshold concerns noted below and other

concerns, but the TA did not respond.

3. Lack of standing

The TA (again, the TETRA Association) lacks standing to file the Petition. The TA is

not a US legal entity. Moreover, it does hold any FCC licenses outright (or any rights to any

FCC license via any lease) for which any current (or even possible future) TETRA equipment

may be operated under the rules subject of the requested waivers and thus under any grant of the

waivers. Further, TETRA technology is not owned or controlled by the TA or UTC (comments

on UTC are below) nor does the TA manufacture TETRA equipment. TETRA technology is

developed under ETSI as an international wireless standard for major (and minor) PMR digital

trunked-systems; manufactured and sold by various companies, and may be purchased by

qualified radio-spectrum licensees in various nations including in the US (if not for the blocks

and threats noted herein). No such licensees or TETRA equipment makers joined in and signed

5
the TA Petition.6 As the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit found in 1996, in SunCom v.

FCC (underling and item in brackets added):

SunCom filed requests with the Commission on February 1, 1994 for … a waiver
of the Commission's eight-month construction deadline for 220 MHz licenses,
[contained in the FCC rule section] 47 C.F.R. § 90.725(f)….

"In order to establish standing under Article III, a complainant must allege (1) a
personal injury-in-fact that is (2) 'fairly traceable' to the defendant's conduct and
(3) redressable by the relief requested." Branton v. FCC, 993 F.2d 906, 908
(D.C.Cir.1992) [318 U.S.App.D.C. 379] (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737,
751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324-25, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----,
114 S.Ct. 1610, 128 L.Ed.2d 338 (1994)….

At the time SunCom filed the requests, it had no 220 MHz licenses of its own but
only "written expressions of interest…”.

These allegations fail to show the required "injury-in-fact," namely, "an invasion
of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b)
'actual or imminent, not "conjectural" or "hypothetical," ' " Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)
(citations omitted)….

Suncom v. FCC, 87 F.3d 1386; 318 U.S. App. D.C. 377; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 16257

(“Suncom”).7 As noted above, as with SunCom, the TA has no FCC licenses based on which it

6
They are not even served copies. And the licensees most active in seeking TETRA and who
have the most unused spectrum for TETRA, the Skybridge Parties, area not only not served a
copy, but are opposed by the TA in their efforts to clear the Motorola block and litigation threat
of TETRA in the US. In addition, the only two equipment makers that the Petition, on page 10,
names and weakly suggests may bring TETRA “competition” to the US, Motorola and
Tyco/Harris, are not only not served copies, but Motorola is the direct cause of blocking TETRA
in the US and Tyco/Harris does not make TETRA core radio systems and terminals (but claims it
provides “common universal networking platform” [*] which supports TETRA systems”) ([*]
from: http://www.tycoelectronics.com/aboutus/news/prodnews.asp?id=1267) and it sells its own 4-slot
TDMA, Open Sky. It has not supported TETRA introduction in the US. Petitioner sought
support from Tyco, including in direct meetings, but with no success. Both Motorola and
Tyco/Harris, who do not want TETRA in the US, are dues paying major members of the TETRA
Association, have Board seats in that Association, and have major influence in that Association
and in UTC due to their being the major suppliers to UTC members. (See below regarding
UTC.)
7
More broadly, standing to bring actions before a US administrative agency, decisions on which
are subject to appeal to courts (as in the case of FCC waiver grants or denials) are subject to
Article III standing requirements under the US Constitution, which the TA clearly fails to satisfy
for reasons summarized in the SunCom case cited above. The requirements include
6
may seek rule waivers (a licensee may seek waivers of FCC technical rules for equipment seeks

to use, as well as other rules pertaining to it license(s)), and that may be injured by lack of grant.

Nor is the TA an equipment maker that may submit equipment to the FCC to utilize grant of the

waivers. Nor, according to Court in Suncom, does the TA have standing based on hypothetical

interest and injury of any of its members that are equipment makers or licensees (the undersigned

does not believe there are any such FCC licensee member of the TA):

Public Citizen v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 565 F.2d 708, 717-19 (D.C.Cir.1977)
(economic injury claimed by industrial machinery dealers represented by trade
association challenging sale of property by General Services Administration to
private company--loss of members' opportunities to sell their own property to
purchaser or to purchase one of plants sold--was "too speculative" where
association "claimed only that its members were interested in purchasing 'some of
the property sold to [the purchaser]' " and there was no evidence of "any existing
relationship between [purchaser and members] which would require [purchaser]
to buy from them as opposed to buying from non-members" nor any
"demonstration that its members presently participate in or contemplate
participation in a viable business project which had adequate resources and an
existent intent to purchase property such as [that claimed]").

4. Lack of Ripeness and Futility

The TA Petition is not ripe, and indeed, the evidence noted herein demonstrates that it is,

and grant of it would be, futile. It is against FCC rules, court precedent and public law and

policy to petition the FCC to waive its rules when, if that relief is granted, that relief cannot be

applied.8 See the US and Circuit cases cited above regarding standing. In sum, as further shown

demonstration of injury, causation and redressability, none of which the TA in the TA Petition
satisfies. In addition to the SunCom case, see the US Supreme Court decisions Massachusetts v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), and Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504
U.S. 555 (1992).
8
Indeed, that is the way in which the TA has conducted its presentations to the US PMR
markets: it first asks key staff and officers of US FCC licensees to spend their time and resources
to listen to the TA and support its interests (the reality of which is keeps in private discussion
with its members, including what the TA often publicly states in the US as its “good member,
Motorola”) but without itself showing to these FCC licensees that is has sincerity and standing.
That sincerity and standing, if it existed, would require the TA—the self proclaimed authority on
TETRA—to demonstrate to the interested US PMR market, including the Skybridge Parties, that
is has a legally sound solution to its “good member” Motorola’s blocking of TETRA in the US
7
herein, the TA Petition is not ripe and is futile since (i) Motorola blocks TETRA in the US and

threatens patent infringement litigation against those who do seek TETRA,9 and (ii) no TETRA

equipment maker is willing to sell TETRA equipment in the US until that Motorola blocking and

threat is legally and clearly solved.

5. Lack of Candor, False Statements,

Misleading Statements, and Abuse of Process

For reasons noted above and further below, the TA lacks candor in submitting the

Petition, when it certainly knows the defects of lack of ripeness and futility described above,10

and it knows or should the defect of lack of standing.11

Also, the premise stated in the TA Petition is false. It asserts that “a number of

manufacturers stand ready to produced TETRA-based devices in this country.” The Skybridge

Parties have spent hundreds of hours, and large travel, legal, and other costs, in communications

with all TETRA equipment manufacturers (and with companies that have SDR radios capable of

running TETRA) that expressed any interest in providing TETRA for the US market. They all,

and litigation threats, or at the very least that it is strongly and publicly seeking and supporting
legal solutions, including that others demonstrate, and is using best-effort means at its lawful
disposal to change the Motorola blocking and threat position. It has not done that, despite
repeated requests by the Skybridge Parties. Instead, at meetings the undersigned arranged, the
TA CEO, Phil Kidner, stated first discussed its “good member” Motorola, and then stated
repeatedly that the undersigned did not know what he was talking about regarding legal
solutions, and the same TA CEO informed a large gathering of UTC (United Telecom Council)
member as their annual meeting in in Orlando that “you can’t have TETRA” while at the same
meting the undersigned attempted to explain legal solutions.
9
Motorola, the TA, and others aware those threats understand basic US patent infringement law
including that damages may be sought for a multiple of actual damages.
10
The TA Petition goes so far in misleading statements as to suggest that Motorola stands ready
to sell TETRA in the US, when it knows Motorola to be the direct cause of the blocking TETRA
in the US (with TA shelter), where it tells the FCC on p. 10:
There are a large number of TETRA product manufacturers worldwide, including U.S.
companies such as Motorola and Tyco/Harris. This…allows for greater competition and
lower prices
11
It is not believable that the TA, in association with UTC (see below) and with FCC-law expert
legal counsel does not understand this defect.
8
without exception repeatedly state to the undersigned, and in the US market that they will not

manufacture and sell TETRA (including in the current spectrum ranges for TETRA that are

within US PMR bands) for use in the US without the legal block and litigation threat by

Motorola described herein legally and clearly solved. They have told that to the undersigned in

communications that also included the CEO and Chairman of the TA. There is no evidence

otherwise, and that includes after repeated requests by the undersigned to the TA officers and to

said TETRA equipment manufacturers. It is also reflected in the website www.tetra-us.us

including in the Declarations page, and none of the manufacturers listed therein issued any

corrections to that website’s controller at any time (the undersigned is in charge of that website

for Skybridge Spectrum Foundation and its supporters). Even if that statement of in the TA

Petition were true, it fails to provide standing for reasons given above. But it is a further

disqualification to submit a false statement to the FCC to seek anything from the FCC. The FCC

staff time is an important public resource paid for by US public tax dollars and other public

funds, and it cannot lawfully be taken up under guise of false statements or lack of candor in

failing to disclose material facts.

In addition, the TA Petition also rests on misleading statements (as well as the false ones noted

above) including where it asserts, on pages 1 and 12:

A waiver will allow TErrestrial Trunked RAdio (“TETRA”) technology, widely used
around the world as the next generation standard for digital mobile radio technology, to
be used in the United States. …

For the reasons set forth herein, the Association requests waivers of Sections 90.209,
90.210 and 2.1043, permitting the TETRA standard to be used in the United States. These
requested waivers will serve the public interest, as the availability of TETRA in the
United States will open the U.S. market to a low cost, fully-interoperable, and cutting
edge technology much needed by public safety and private mobile radio users.

9
 First, TETRA is not the “next generation” or “cutting edge” by any stretch. 12 13 It is a mature

technology originating in ETSI and commenced in the European market in the early to mid 1980s. The

next generation of PMR is wide band and broadband PMR, for example, the IP Wireless TD-CDMA

system used in the New York City NYCWiN network. Nor is TETRA “low cost,” rather, it is generally

more expensive than current analog PMR per coverage. It may be as cost effective for coverage

capacity. It is less expensive than P25, but P25 is known to be over priced or at least very expensive, as

the GAO noted in GAO-07-301.

In addition and more fundamentally, the TA Petition only deals with some services, not even all,

within FCC Part 90. There is other spectrum including under Parts 80 and 22 that could be used for

TETRA (and contain licensees including the Skybridge Petitioners who hold more spectrum than any

the TA can demonstrate, that have been pursuing TETRA) and thus the TA Petition is misleading to

state without qualification that if its sought waiver are granted, that will “allow” TETRA to be used in

the United States and “open the US market” for TETRA. Also, many of those Part 90 radio services that

the TA Petition deals with involve shared spectrum where TETRA multi-site systems, that require

geographic exclusive spectrum for good planning and operations, will be difficult, and where co-channel

users in the vicinity using older analog systems will be substantial (raising issues not unlike those Nextel

faced in deploying iDEN, which is somewhat similar to TETRA, on 800 MHz Part 90 channels). The

TA Petition exhibit at p. 13, however, says it deals with only adjacent channel issues. While these

problems may re addressable, they are glossed over in the TA Petition, and the TA does not show that it

12
If PMR, especially in the US, was not so inept and subject to ingrown old-boy stifling
manipulation, partly noted herein, as compared to CMRS, that assertion would be downright
laughable.
13
Likewise false, for above and other reasons, is the TA Petition statement:
No other available LMR technology has the capabilities of TETRA, which combines
voice (two-way radio), mobile telephony, status messaging, short data service, packet
data up to 28.8k/bits, enhanced data (up to 600k/bits), encryption, and more.
10
attempted to resolve the potential problems with parties that may be affected. It did not even serve a

copy on parties it must know have interest. That includes NPSTC:

On invitation by Marilyn Ward of NPSTC, the undersigned arranged a presentation on TETRA

before NPSTC in June 2008.14 The presentation included a TA Board member, Roger Dowling (as

presentation at the preceding footnote shows). As a result of the presentation, the NPSTC Board and the

TA agreed to undertake a joint techical study objectively omparing TETRA and P25. Mr. Sorley for

NPSTC was assigned to this task on behalf of NPSTC. NPSTC proceeded seriously, as shown in its

November 2009 Board Minutes on page 13.15 However, the TA declined to provide the needed funding

to proceed with this important project that was obviously a major opportunity for TETRA in the US, if

the TA actually had interest in that verses serving the interest of its Motorola to block and at least delay

TETRA until its US patents for TETRA expire (the last of which, for TETRA Release 1, appears to

expire in year 2014). The TA both avoids and even opposes the major opportunity for TETRA in the

US presented by the Skybridge Parties that have the most spectrum in the US for advanced intelligent

transport, but also by the pubic safety community: public safety and transportation are two of the largest

three markets for TETRA. However, the point here is that the TA is fully aware of the interest and the

concerns (justified or not) by NPSTC and its public safety constituents, yet is did not address those in

the TA Petition nor did it serve a copy on NPSTC or any of those constituents. That is a defect for

reasons noted above.

The disqualification created by lack of candor, false and misleading statements, and the

like is well known.

[T]he Commission defines lack of candor to include not only providing false
information but also “concealment, evasion or other failure to be fully informative
accompanied by an intent to deceive.” Trinity Broad. of Fla., Inc., 10 F.C.C.R.
12020, 12063 (1995).

14
Copy at: http://www.npstc.org/meetings/20080618-Havens-TETRA-v2.pdf.
15
Copy at: http://www.npstc.org/meetings/NPSTC%20Gov%20Bd%20November%202008%20121808.pdf
11
James A. Kay v. FCC, 396 F.3d 1184; 364 U.S. App. D.C. 448; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 1540

(hearing, en banc, denied). In this Kay case, the US Circuit Court for FCC upheld the FCC

decision including the following:

See also RKO General, Inc. v. FCC, 670 F.2d 215, 229 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("As a
licensing authority, the Commission is not expected to 'play procedural games
with those who come before it in order to ascertain the truth' . . . . [….] Moreover,
the failure to provide information known to be relevant or a failure to respond
based on a facially implausible theory may constitute lack of candor. Fox
Television Stations, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd at 8508 PP137.

In the Matter of James A. Kay, Jr., FCC 01-341. Released January 25, 2002. 17 FCC Rcd 1834;

2002 FCC LEXIS 409.

For reasons noted above, the TA Petition also appears to be an abuse of process under

standards the Commission has set:

….concealed material facts…."none of NMTV's applications seeking a minority

exemption . . . disclosed to the Commission information about Duff's relationship
with TBN or NMTV's relationship with TBN."…. NMTV's applications were
"models of nondisclosure" … and therefore constituted abuse of process.

In re Applications of Trinity Broadcasting of Florida, FCC 98-313. Released April 15, 1999. 14

FCC Rcd 13570; 1999 FCC LEXIS 1591. In the instant matter, the TA does not disclose the

most relevant facts noted herein (the Motorola blocking and threats), and it asserts a false

premise, as discussed above: that appears to be abuse of process. Submitting a petition to the

FCC that one knows, or should know, to be futile and thus pursued for some other reason is also

abuse of process.

6. Grant of the Sought Waivers Cannot Be Assigned;

Waiver Assignments Are Not Allowed Under FCC Rules;
and Suggested Assignments Fail to Meet Standing Requirements

Even if (and the undersigned at this time questions it for cause to be noted later) the TA

Petition had technical and public interest merit under the criteria required for waiver grant under

Section 1.925 of the FCC rules or Section 1.3, there is no provision under FCC rules or policy

for the TA to assign a grant to any TETRA equipment manufacturer or to any US licensee

12
seeking to use equipment under the grant. More fundamentally, the TA fails to have and

demonstrate standing in this situation, as discussed in the last quote from the SunCom case

included above. Any grant of the requested waivers would be to the TA. Rule waivers, as

opposed to rule changes, are granted in unique circumstances demonstrated by a party that has

standing to seek and benefit from grant upon showing of extraordinary need and that has

otherwise complied with FCC rules and policy in good faith. Waivers cannot be sought and

granted and then, in effect, licensed off to others (such as some TA members) who may not in

fact meet waiver standard, which is what the TA must be suggesting. TETRA is used only for

high-power government-licensed spectrum, not for use in unlicensed bands, and in any case, the

TA does not make equipment for unlicensed or licensed bands. Nor does it have any legal or

other power to obligate its members that make TETRA equipment to follow its dictates or use

any FCC waiver grant. Again, see the SunCom excerpts above.

7. Lack of Notice to Potentially Effected Parties

The TA also fails to serve a copy of the TA Petition on parties that, by its own text, it

knows may be affected. That is discussed above, and indicated further below.

8. Lack of Identification of and Certification by the Engineer

Any technical exhibit or assertions of decisional importance, as in this case, warrant the

identification of and certification by the engineer that authored them, for the FCC and parties in

interest to consider its reliability and to communicate if appropriate with the authors. The TA

Petition did not provide this.

13
 9. Further Discussion of the Skybridge Parties’
Interest and Purpose in this Matter
The Skybridge Parties seek to minimize use of FCC staff recourses on matters where

petitions lack standing and/ or that are not ripe or futile, as in this case, and where petitioners

choose to withhold those defects. Thus, they present this pleading.

The Skybridge Parties have sought TETRA equipment from equipment companies that

expressed willingness to provide it (subject to a legal solution to the Motorola blocking and

threats) and respect of US law and interests involved, and the also sought support from and gave

support to the TA for the same purposes. After an initial period (reflected in www.tetra-us.us),

the TA elected a contrary position, and now presents a petition to the FCC without meeting

threshold requirements that are well known, that lacks required candor, and that seeks to evade

the interest of the most active FCC licensees seeking TETRA in the US, the Skybridge Parties,

that also have the most available FCC spectrum to use TETRA.16 Those TA actions hurt the case

for TETRA in the US and assist in the blocking and threat position of Motorola.

The Skybridge Parties have clearly and repeatedly informed the TA, its members

including Motorola, and UTC17 of its position, and given in detail the reasons. None of them

16
The Skybridge Parties will further explain that in the upcoming more-full Opposition.
17
UTC informed the undersigned that it has an ad hoc group that developed with the TA the TA
Petition. The TA and UTC did not include the undersigned for the Skybridge Parties in that
group, except to deliver a copy of the petition after it was filed, despite the fact that UTC knows
well that the undersigned has keen interest in the matters of the TA Petition and that group, and
the Skybridge Parties include a UTC member, and has recently asked to be part of that group and
get past group documents. UTC has not granted that request. Similarly, the undersigned asked
the TA CEO and Chariman if one of his companies could join the TA as a member under its
standard rules and procedures, and they did not respond. It is clear that the TA and UTC do not
want their position before the FCC, or in the US markets, to be subject to any opposing views.
Apart from the matters of their internal laws with respect to members and member applicants, the
undersigned believe that is against public interest in these circumstances based on the public
position and work of the undersigned and the Skybridge Parties to open access for TETRA to all
in the US, based on fair application of law and clear public interests at stake. Motorola is a
principal member of both the TA and UTC. The undersigned and the Skybridge Parties have no
relation with Motorola, and do not accept relations with any company contrary to US law and
14
have shown facts and law to the contrary. However, any violations of US law and public interest

thereby caused by Motorola and parties in direct or indirect support of Motorola is a matter

subject to the primary jurisdiction of US courts (and in some instances, also the US Federal

Trade Commission, the US Department of Justice, and analogous State authorities). If violations

are found, that could be relevant to related matters then pending or later submitted to the FCC

under its jurisdiction.

10. Substantive Defects: Failure to Meet Waiver Standard

The Commission has set forth its standards to grant waivers, including with regard to

equipment rules for licensed spectrum as follows (the below is from such a case) (footnotes in

original, with numbering changed to confirm with this pleading):

In analyzing the waiver requests, we consider established legal standards for

waiver of the Commission's rules. The Commission will adhere strictly to its
rules unless a party can demonstrate that "in the public interest the rule should be
waived."18 Furthermore, the Commission may only waive a provision of its rules
for “good cause shown.”19 The party petitioning the Commission for a waiver
bears the burden of showing good cause: "[a]n applicant [for a waiver] faces a
high hurdle even at the starting gate."20 The Commission must take a "hard look"
at applications for waiver21 and must consider all relevant factors when
determining if good cause exists.22 Finally, "[t]he agency must explain why
deviation better serves the public interest, and articulate the nature of the special
circumstances, to prevent discriminatory application and to put future parties on
notice as to its operation."23

The TA did not commence to this burden. The defects discussed above as procedural

defects also demonstrate lack of the required public interest to meet this substantive criteria,

public interests. That poses a problem with may parties’ business practices, but it is their
problem under public law and public interests.
18
FPC v. Texaco Inc., 377 U.S. 33, 39 (1964).
19
47 C.F.R. §1.3.
20
WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969).
21
Id.
22
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971).
23
Northeast Cellular Telephone Company, L.P. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166
(D.C. Cir. 1990).
15
since, to start with, the TA Petition is not joined and signed by any FCC licensees or TETRA

equipment maker that may take use grant of the Request in the public interest.

In addition, the TA Petition glosses over the technical and public interest assertions in the

text, with little support other than in the exhibits.

Further, the TA Petition asserts that the subject emission mask for which it seeks waiver

is based on analog technology and is not suitable for digital technology. What it appears to argue

is for a rule change, not a waiver, since a waiver is appropriate only if the subject rule is

fundamentally sound, and it is clear that most recent-years and new PMR is digital like TETRA.

Also the Exhibit at p. 13 asserts without explanation or citing applicable FCC rule(s) that

TETRA must comply with Mask B, C or G. Applicable Part 90 rules involved other emission

masks in the spectrum ranges in which the TA Petition is limited. (While the TA Petition may

be correct in this matter, it is not shown clearly as it should be.)

The “Purpose” of the exhibit24 is not demonstrated since it only deals with emission

masks and that is only one factor pertaining to that purpose.

The Skybridge Parties may comment further on this substantive criteria issue, in a further

filing if the TA Petition is not dismissed and the opportunity arises.

11. Request to Designate the Skybridge Parties as Parties

Based upon—(i) the substantial interest of the Skybridge Parties expressed herein,25 (ii)

the fact that the TA did not include and serve them as parties when filing the TA Petition, nor did

24
“The purpose of this technical note is to analyze TETRA’s impact on other technologies used
for Land Mobile Radio (LMR) in the United States and to show that it can co-exist without
causing interference to users of such technologies.”
25
Unlike the TA, the Skybridge Parties as FCC licensees of spectrum suitable for TETRA have
standing to seek waivers with regard to TETRA if they chose to. Skybridge has in addition
nonprofit interest to support US public agencies in advanced PMR as part of its core purposes.
And all of the Skybridge Parties may rightfully challenge any petition to the FCC that fails to
meet procedural threshold requirements, and that employs statements they know to be false and
that lack required disclosures, since that challenge is in support of FCC law and protection of
FCC recourses in the public interest.
16
the TA associate entity in preparing the TA Petition, United Telecom Council (“UTC”), despite

the expressed interests of the undersigned and his Skybridge Parties to the TA and UTC and their

clear understanding of the Skybridge Parties’ interests in TETRA in the US and the facts asserted

or withheld in the TA Petition, and (iii) the failure by the TA in submitting the TA Petition to

disclose material facts shown above and to employ false facts, and to submit a procedurally

defective Petition (that the TA and UTC could hardly believe was not defective), and the

Skybridge Parties bringing that to FCC attention herein—the Skybridge Parties request that the

FCC designate them as parties to any processing of the TA Petition by the FCC. This is

appropriate since the Skybridge Parties act here in the public interest, including compliance with

FCC rules and polices, and since they have major interests in seeing that TETRA is lawfully and

effectively made available to the FCC, and not by attempts that have contrary intent or effect, as

in the case of the subject TA Petition. If the TA Petition were a petition that permits a party with

standing to submit a timely challenge and thereby become a Party, and if the Skybridge Parties

(or some of them) had standing and submitted said challenge, then they would automatically

become parties. But that does not apply in this case. Thus, the above request is submitted.

12. Request to Place on Public Notice

and For Investigation, and Not for Dismissal

For reasons given above, the Skybridge Petitioners believe that while the TA Petition is

procedurally defective and thus may be dismissed without dealing with the substance, it posses

matters of major importance to the US PMR industry, including the blocking and threats by

Motorola, the lack of candor and false statements in the TA Petition by the Association which

includes Motorola as one its major members,26 and since if TETRA in the US was not blocked,

26
Motorola is the, or one of the several, major sellers of TETRA worldwide (that is common
knowledge and can be proven up if needed) and has great influence in the TA, which Association
informs the US markets including the undersigned that Motorola is its “good member” despite its
blocking of and threats described herein. The TA also complained to the undersigned that
17
subject to threats, and subject to defective and misleading petitions (which divert from the real

problem stated herein), it would be a great benefit to the US PMR market and to the public

served by PMR operators including the Skybridge Parties for much needed public Intelligent

Transportation Systems, utilities, railroads and others.

Thus, the Skybridge Petitioners request that the TA Petition be placed on public notice

with an appropriately long pleading cycle, such as 90 or 120 days, given the magnitude of the

issues raised and the amount of material that is likely to be submitted, and indicating the issues

that the FCC asks to be addressed. After obtaining public comments and replies, the FCC may

then proceed with any investigation it believes is warranted. The FCC has authority to fashion

such a proceeding, even when a petition that commences it is procedurally defective. For

example, it employs notices of inquiry proceedings upon outside request or its own motion, and

also investigates licensees and license applicants under Section 308 of the Communications Act.

(The rest of this page is intentionally left blank.)

Motorola bitterly objects to the TA having any association with the undersigned based in his
position in www.tetra-us.us, and after that complaint, the TA followed that Motorola objection
faithfully in support of Motorola, at minimum. UTC also informed the undersigned, and also the
US PMR markets via its trade press, that it also rejects the attempts at legal solutions to the
Motorola block and threats set forth in www.tetra-us.us. The undersigned asserts that UTC has
private interests for that that oppose US public interests and the interests of its members that are
not too much beholden to and afraid of Motorola (such that those that depend on Motorola due to
extensive current use of its products). US utilities are among the major users and beneficiaries of
governments eminent domain powers and of the public rights of way. But on the other hand,
they have for the most part long since obtained valuable private and public property by said
exercise, and they now generally oppose wireless operators that see to “piggy back” on their
rights obtained from government. In any case, for whatever reason, UTC opposes the legal
solutions the undersigned asserts, and it has none itself. Thus, its participated in formulating and
presenting TA Petition may fairly be questioned.
18
 Respectfully submitted,

Warren Havens
President for each of the
“Skybridge Parties”27—
Skybridge Spectrum Foundation
Environmentel LLC
Verde Systems LLC
Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC
Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC
2646 Benvenue Avenue
Berkeley California 94704
Phone 510 841 2220

December 15, 2009

27
Use of the term “Skybridge Parties” herein is for convenience only, and by its use, none of the
included parties imply that they are not (as is in fact the case) distinct legal entities under law,
and in ownership, assets, business pursuits, and other essential distinctions, or that the nonprofit
Skybridge Spectrum Foundation does not fully adhere to its obligations under applicable law to
act only in support of defined public interest and not for any private interest when in some cases,
including here, it joins in action with other legal entities that are not nonprofit entities with the
same public-benefit interests and restrictions.
19
 Declaration

I, Warren Havens, as President of Petitioners, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that the

foregoing “Initial Opposition…”, including all Attachments, was prepared pursuant to my

direction and control and that all the factual statements and representations contained herein are

true and correct.

____________________________________

Warren Havens

December 15, 2009

20
Attachment

The URL links to the full documents listed and summarized below are under their titles below.

These documents describe some of the Skybridge Parties’ FCC-license based business plans and actions,
and some their TETRA related actions in addition to those at www.tetra-us.us (which as described early
in the text above, has not been updated since early 2009 and thus does not reflect of their position in this
pleading).

Feb. 2007 Complaint to ETSI re Motorola Refusal to License US TETRA Patents

Complaint to ESTI (European Technical Standards Institute) from Telesaurus LLCs concerning
Motorola refusal to license its US patents for TETRA, to block TETRA sales and use in the
United States. ETSI at first responded in writing that it would obtain a response from its member
Motorola and report that to these Complainants, but later ETSI refused to provide the Motorola
response, claiming that was an internal confidential matter. See also the document "November
2009 Open Letter to TETRA Association & ETSI re US TETRA radio Patents- Licensing
Availability."
----------

C-HALO Cost-benefit Study Outline, UC Berkeley

A 2010 University of California-Berkeley group cost-benefit study on Cooperative High
Accuracy Location (C-HALO) with tightly integrated dedicated wireless communications, for
nationwide smart transportation systems in the United States, with extensions to other domains:
A next generation nationwide location infrastructure. The study is sponsored as public-interest
research by unrestricted grants and grant pledges from Skybridge Spectrum Foundation and
related LLCs that hold FCC licenses for nationwide smart transport, energy, and environment,
including free core services (those most needed for safety and transport efficiency). The study
follows on past work by the same University group and Skybridge in these areas.

Skybridge-Telesaurus 2009 Overview of High Accuracy Location- HALO- to US DOT RITA

2009 presentation to US DOT RITA by Warren Havens for Skybridge Spectrum Foundation
(with support by Telesaurus LLCs, and in association with Prof. Raja Sengupta at University of
California Berkeley, of nationwide High Accuracy Location (HALO) as the foundation for
advanced Intelligent Transportation Systems, provide sub-meter accuracy guidance of vehicles
along and across lanes to greatly reduce accidents, congestion, pollution, etc.

Skybridge - Telesaurus Plan: Nationwide High Accuracy Location Based Intelligent

Transportation (2008)
2008 Summary of the Telesaurus LLCs- Skybridge Spectrum Foundation plan for nationwide
Intelligent Transportation Systems based upon high accuracy (sub-meter) location (HALO) and
guidance of vehicles, along and across lances, using terrestrial and space (GPS-GNSS)
multilateration and other forms of location determination, along with tightly integrated dedicated
two-way and one-way radio communications, and dynamic GIS, as from ESRI. The plan was
submitted at the 2007 ITS World Congress in Beijing, the FCC, NTIA and other entities and
fora. The core safety and efficiency services will be at no cost to government agencies and the
general public. Telesaurus and Skybridge are developing the technical components and
deployment concepts with assistance of transportation-, wireless-, and other experts at the
University of California, Berkeley, and other entities. More recent work includes support of
smart transportation as integrated with smart or intelligent transportation, as in V2G (vehicle to

21
grid) enabled by said HALO+tight wireless. Smart transportation and energy systems will in
large part merge, and they each and especially together need the planned dedicated radio location
and communication networks.

High Accuracy Location (HALO) for Intelligent Transport & Infrastructure, and GPS backup
2009 presentation regarding planned nationwide High Accuracy Location (for vehicles, etc.) to
augment and backup GPS, to the US Office of Position Navigation & Timing (that coordinates
GPS among Federal agencies and is liaison with private sector) by W. Havens of Skybridge
Spectrum Foundation (that holds FCC mLMS licenses with Telesaurus Holdings) and Prof. Raja
Sengupta of University of California Berkeley, also with Prof. Kannan Ramchandran. The same
presentation was made to other public agencies, and associations involving wireless
communication and public safety.

Smart Transport, Energy & Envrionment Radio - STEER, presentation to Caltrans, 2009 2009
presentation of STEER- Smart Transport, Energy & Environment Radio systems by Warren
Havens of Skybridge Spectrum Foundation (with support of Telesaurus LLCs, and Prof. Raja
Sengupta and others of University of California Berkeley) to Caltrans. STEER is a proposed
nationwide dedicated radio service for purposes noted above. It includes HALO- High Accuracy
Location, and core services at no cost to end users (like GPS).

Smart Railroads- 200 Wide Band+ High Accuracy Location, By Federal Railroad Admin, 2008
2008 presentation by the Federal Railroad Administration of developments for smart or
intelligent railroads based in large part on advanced wireless communications using 200 MHz
radio spectrum, additional spectrum for wider band wireless, high accuracy location by enhanced
GPS, etc. This parallels similar developments in intelligent or smart highways, electric grid,
airports, and other core infrastructure, and for smart environment (wide scale environmental
monitoring and protection). Skybridge Spectrum Founcation, Telesaurus and related LLCs focus
on wireless for these Smart Transport, Energy, and Environment Radio systems, with core
-----------

Errata and Notice: Oct 2009 Petition to FCC for Declaratory Rulings Re Section 47 USC 332
Preemption (licensee antitrust violations & torts)
This an Errata to the document entitled on Scribd: "Oct 2009 Petition to FCC for Declaratory
Rulings Re Section 47 USC 332 Preemption (licensee antitrust violations & torts)."

Oct 2009 Petition to FCC for Declaratory Rulings Re Section 47 USC 332 Preemption (licensee
antitrust violations & torts)
Petition to the FCC for declaratory rulings whether the Communications Act including §332, or
the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, preempts State or Federal court
jurisdiction and awarding of monetary damages and other action sought by one CMRS or PMRS
service provider against another, for violation of State or Federal antitrust law, tort law, and
certain other law. Submitted by Skybridge Spectrum Foundation and affiliated LLCs in October
2009. See also Errata filed October 29, 2009. Submitted to obtain FCC rulings on preemption
issues in pending court cases in the Ninth Circuit, the California Courts- at the Supreme Court
level, and US District Court in New Jersey, regarding Skybridge Spectrum Foundation and /or
affiliates Telesaurus LLCs as plaintiffs and as defendants Paging Systems Inc. (Sandra and
Robert Cooper) Maritime Communications Land Mobile (Sandra and Donald Depriest)
(MCLM), Mobex (merged into MCLM), and in one case, Radiolink (Randy Powers).
-----------

22
November 2009 Open Letter to TETRA Association & ETSI re US TETRA radio Patents-
Licensing Availability
November 2009 open letter to the TETRA Association & ETSI regarding the availability of
licenses for the US Patents held by Motorola for TETRA technology so that TETRA radio
equipment can be sold and used in the US. The same questions posed to these entities now, as in
past years when they first pledged responses, then later refused responses. These entities publicly
assert that they stand for promotion of TETRA worldwide, and have member that members act in
accordance including with regard to licensing on fair and reasonable terms their patents for
TETRA, but to date have not publicly or effectively acted in accord, including since they allow
their member, Motorola, to violate those policies. This letter also cites the current Motorola web
page on licensing its patents for TETRA which does not exclude its US patents for TETRA,
indicating that Motorola either changed its past position to not license said US TETRA patents,
or that Motorola is misrepresenting its position to the relevant markets.

Tait Radio Support of Motorola, Unlawful Block of TETRA US

Legal Notice from Telesaurus, Havens & associates to Tait Radio of violation of US law by
publishing false statements supporting Motorola's unlawful and inequitable blocking of TETRA
radio technology and equipment in the United States. Comment on TETRA as superior to other
private mobile and fixed radio systems for use in US.
------------

Maritime Communications Land Mobile LLC, D. Depriest, & Affiliates: FCC Investigation, Aug
2009 (1 of 3)
Federal Communications Commission August 2009 inquiry to three companies controlled by
Donald and Sandra Depriest: Maritime Communications / Land Mobile LLC, Maritel, and
Wireless Properties of Virgina regarding many conflicting statements of licensee control,
affiliates and gross revenues (and bidding credits in AMTS Auction 61) and other matters, based
upon the various petitions to the FCC submitted by competing bidders in that auction managed
by Warren Havens. This is the first of three letters each dated August 18, 2009. The responses of
these three above-named entities as well as related FCC filings by said competitors are in FCC
public ULS files and may also be otherwise published.

Maritime Communications Land Mobile LLC, D. Depriest, & Affiliates: FCC Investigation, Aug
2009 (2 of 3)

Maritime Communications Land Mobile LLC, D. Depriest, & Affiliates: FCC Investigation, Aug
2009 (3 of 3)

Spectrum Bridge, SpecEx- Legal Notice- Failure to Disclose AMTS License Conditions,
Proceedings, Etc.
Legal Notice to Spectrum Bridge, SpecEx, by W. Havens for his AMTS licensee companies,
regarding failure to disclose FCC-investigation and FCC-rule issues in sales marketing of AMTS
licenses of Maritime Communications/ Land Mobile and Thomas Kurian. (Before FCC [On
ULS], and to Spectrum Bridge, the Havens' AMTS licensee companies presented detailed facts
and law as to why they were the rightful high bidders for the AMTS licenses issued to MCLM in
FCC Auction 61, and they have a binding contract to obtain 90%+ of the T. Kurian AMTS
license. Also, the FCC is investigating (commencing mid August 2009) under Section 308 of the
Communications Act the facts demonstrated in the Havens'companies, as indicated in this

23
document.

FCC Communications Act Sec. 308 Decision- Licensee Kay, Attorney Dennis Brown- Lack
Candor, License Revocation, Fines
FCC full Commission decision in 2002 regarding licensee Kay and attorney Dennis Brown
regarding investigation under Section 308 of the Communications Act, finding lack of candor
and other failures in responding, and underlying violations of FCC license rules, and resulting in
license revocations and monetary fine. Attorney Dennis Brown is the same attorney handling the
year 2009 (commenced) Section 308 investigation regarding Donald and Sandra Depriest,
Maritime Communications Land Mobile LLC (MCLM), Wireless Properties of Virginia, and
Maritel (said three entities controlled in relevant periods by one or both of the Depriests).

24
 Certificate of Service

I, Warren C. Havens, certify that I have, on this Tuesday, December 15, 2009, caused to
be served, by placing into the USPS mail system with first-class postage affixed, unless
otherwise noted, a printed copy of the foregoing “Initial Opposition…” to the following, as
follows. The service copies served by the US Postal Service (“USPS”) mail are being placed
into a USPS drop-box today, but if that is after the last time that said box’s contents are picked
up by a USPS employee for processing, said mail may not be processed and post marked by the
USPS until the next business day. Also, courtesy copies, not for purposes of service, will be sent
to the emails listed below.

The TETRA Association

Its attorneys:
Phil Kidner, CEO
Henry Goldberg phil.kidner@tetra-association.com
Laura Stefani
Goldbeg, Godles, Wiener & Wright Phil Godfrey, Chaiman
1229 19th Street, N.W. phil.godfrey@tetra-association.com
Washington, D.C. 20036

Other entities with interest

(of which the Skybridge Parties are aware)
and that are named in this pleading,
and that may have relevant information

Motorola, Inc. NPSTC

Attn: Stu Overby and Mike Krauss Tom Sorley, Tech Committee Chair
1301 East Algonquin Road Deputy Director Radio Comm Services
Schaumburg, IL 60196 City of Houston - Information Tech Dept.
Stu.Overby@motorola.com 611 Walker Street - Suite 936
Mike.Kraus@motorola.com Houston, TX 77002
tom.sorley@cityofhouston.net
Harris Corporation
Attn: Eugene Cavallucci, Gen. Counsel ETSI--
Harris Corporation Headquarters Eric Jansen, Director, Legal Affairs
1025 West NASA Boulevard Erik.Jansen@etsi.org
Melbourne, Florida 32919-0001 Bernt Mattson, Technical Officer for TETRA
Bernt.Mattsson@etsi.org
Utilities Telecom Council
Attn: Mike Oldak, Gen. Counsel TIA
5th Floor Danielle Coffey
1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Vice President, Government Affairs
Washington, DC 20006 10 G Street NE, Suite 550
mike.oldak@utc.org Washington, DC 20002
dcoffey@tiaonline.org
NPSTC
Ralph Haller, Chair
122 Baltimore Street [Execution on next page.]
Gettysburg, PA 17325
ed@fcca-usa.org

25
___________________________________
Warren Havens
 Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )
)
Request by the TETRA Association )
For Waiver of Sections ) File No. _____________
90.209, 90.210 and 2.1043 of the )
Commission’s Rules )
)

REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SECTIONS 90.209, 90.210 AND 2.1043

The TETRA Association (the “Association”), by its attorneys, hereby requests a waiver
of Sections 90.209, 90.210 and 2.1043 of the Commission’s rules. 1 A waiver will allow
TErrestrial Trunked RAdio (“TETRA”) technology, widely used around the world as the next
generation standard for digital mobile radio technology, to be used in the United States. There is
a demonstrable need in the United States for use of the TETRA standard. While a number of
manufacturers stand ready to produced TETRA-based devices in this country, a waiver of the
Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) rules is necessary to make this technology
available.

The Association therefore seeks a waiver of the following rules:

• The Association requests a waiver of Section 90.209(b)(5), authorizing operations

at an occupied bandwidth of up to 21.5 +/- 0.5 kHz;

• The Association requests a waiver of the rules governing emissions masks B, C,

and G in Section 90.210 to allow for up to 5dB excursions, as discussed below;
and

• The Association seeks a waiver of the Commission’s permissive change rules to

allow TETRA manufacturers who have received interim equipment authorizations

1
47 C.F.R. § § 90.209, 90.210 and 2.1043.
 -2-

using a modified TETRA standard to upgrade to the TETRA standard without

requiring a new application or FCC ID.

I. Background

In 1994, the TETRA Association was formed to promote the use of the TETRA
technology being developed at that time by the European Technical Standards Institute (“ETSI”).
The Association also established from the beginning an interoperability testing and certification
regime to ensure a highly competitive supply of equipment and to provide users with the
confidence to purchase equipment from multiple vendors. Since 1994, the Association has
grown and now represents more than 150 organizations from 37 countries that are involved in
the development, deployment and use of the TETRA standard.

In the last decade, TETRA has become firmly established as the technology of choice for
digital land mobile radio throughout Europe, Asia, South America, Australia and Africa. 2 By
industrial sector, TETRA infrastructure is used most by transportation companies, public safety,
and utilities, all of which rely upon it for fast and reliable voice and data communications.

One of the Association’s first tasks was to work with users and regulators to establish
harmonized spectrum throughout Europe to enable users to move freely across borders using
common equipment. Since then, a number of frequency bands have been agreed upon for the use
of TETRA technology. 3

TETRA is a digital, trunked radio technology that operates with Time Division Multiple
Access (“TDMA”) in four slot channels with 25 kHz channel spacing. TETRA is a 6.25 kHz
equivalent technology and, due to its outstanding adjacent channel performance, has been
successfully integrated into spectrum management regimes throughout the world. TETRA is
designed to work in the 300 MHz to 1 GHz frequency range. TETRA utilizes a highly efficient
data transport mechanism allowing Short Data messages and Status messages to be sent on the
control channel. Circuit mode data and IP packet data can be transmitted at up to 36kbit/s

2
In addition to this waiver request, the Association presently is working with Industry Canada to
obtain regulatory relief needed to deploy TETRA equipment in Canada.
3
Specifically, 350 MHz, 380-400 MHz, 410-430 MHz, 450-470 MHz, 806-870 MHz and 870-
921 MHz.
 -3-

(gross) and 28kbit/s (net) for multi-slot operation. Enhancements to the standard allow data rates
up to 600kbit/s by using more advanced modulation schemes and wider channel bandwidths.

Additionally, TETRA-based products come with built-in air interface encryption and
optional end-to-end encryption features to protect the integrity of the voice/data mobile
communications. Finally, TETRA allows for fast call set-up times of typically less than 300ms
which are essential for mission critical mobile communications. In sum, TETRA combines the
advantages of two-way radio, mobile telephony, messaging and data in a way that is clear, fast
and less expensive than other technologies.

Moreover, TETRA excels in allowing devices to be interoperable; as the first truly open
system standard for digital PRM, competing suppliers now produce compatible equipment. This
allows customers to purchase TETRA devices with confidence, and allows them to source
equipment from many vendors, ensuring greater choice and cost-effectiveness. TETRA also
allows users to share networks and benefit from the resulting lower costs without sacrificing
security.

There is presently TETRA equipment available to work on a number of frequency bands

in the United States, including 450-470 MHz, 806-849 MHz and 851-894 MHz. TETRA meets
all FCC Part 90 requirements except that TETRA modulation does not meet the FCC
requirements for occupied bandwidth and emissions masks.

A. Occupied Bandwidth

TETRA marginally fails the Part 90 occupied bandwidth requirement. TETRA employs
adaptive selection of modulation and coding according to propagation characteristics, and there
are agreed upon schemes for links at the edge of coverage (4 QAM), moderate speeds (16
QAM), high speeds (64 QAM), and common control channel (Π/4 DQPSK). Channel
bandwidths can be 25, 50, 75 or 100 kHz. The ETSI TETRA standard does not set occupied
bandwidth limits. Rather, it sets standards for adjacent channel power and for unwanted
emissions at different offsets, set forth in EN 300 392-2 [3], as detailed below:
 -4-

Table 1 - Maximum adjacent power levels for frequencies below 700 MHz

Table 2 - Maximum adjacent power levels for frequencies above 700 MHz

Table 3 - Wideband noise limits for frequencies below 700 MHz

 -5-

Table 4- Wideband noise limits for frequencies above 700 MHz

B. Emissions Masks

Similarly, the TETRA standard comes close to meeting but does not meet the Part 90
emissions mask requirements.

As discussed above, the ETSI TETRA standard does not establish channel bandwidth
limits via emission masks, but rather sets standards for adjacent channel power and for unwanted
emissions at different offsets. Three Part 90 emissions masks are considered appropriate for
TETRA technologies: masks B, C and G. TETRA just fails to meet the Part 90 requirements by
up to 5dB around 10 kHz offset from the center frequency, typically somewhere in the range
8-12 kHz, as demonstrated below.
-6-

 
 -7-

Notably, the present Part 90 emissions mask requirements are designed for analog
devices. For digital modulation technology such as TETRA, Adjacent Channel Coupled Power
(“ACCP”) would be a better measurement criteria for this technology, as in adjacent channels
TETRA outperforms the FCC’s emissions masks. This performance is a better guarantee of the
ability of TETRA technology to avoid interference and co-exist with other radio systems. The
Association notes that ACCP was adopted in the 700 MHz public safety narrowband proceeding
for use by other Part 90 systems. 4  

C. Permissive Change

As an interim measure, certain TETRA manufacturers are seeking FCC certification of

radios using a modified TETRA standard – essentially reducing power to levels that will permit
compliance with existing Part 90 rules. This is being done to meet critical, immediate demand
for TETRA-style radios while the waiver request is being processed. Assuming that the waiver
request is granted, the effected manufacturers will modify the radios produced using the interim
standard to make them consistent with the worldwide TETRA standard.

4
See 47 C.F.R. Part 90, Subpart R.
 -8-

Generally, the Commission does not allow certain changes to certificated equipment,
including changes to the maximum power, without application and authorization of new grant of
equipment certification. 5 The Association seeks a waiver of this rule to allow the TETRA
manufacturers who have received authorizations for interim TETRA equipment, as described
above, to upgrade to standard TETRA upon grant of this waiver request without having to go
through the process of filing new equipment authorization applications and requesting new FCC
ID numbers.

Grant of this request would serve the public interest, as it will ensure that both
manufacturers and Commission staff will not have to undergo the equipment certification
process twice. 6

II. A Waiver Would Be in the Pubic Interest

The Commission may waive its rules if the underlying purpose of the rule would not be
served or would be frustrated by application of the rule, and waiver of the rule is in the public
interest. 7 Such considerations exist in this instance, as the underlying purpose of Sections
90.209 and 90.210 would be frustrated by application of the rule. Grant of a waiver, on the other
hand, would serve the purpose of the rule by giving users of the technology enhanced capabilities
greatly need by public and private mobile radio users. A waiver also would effectuate the
Commission’s policies favoring prudent and efficient use of spectrum.

In this instance, grant of a waiver would do no harm. TETRA has been successfully
integrated into spectrum management regimes around the world, and TETRA systems are able to
co-exist very well with other technologies. The TETRA standard ensures that RF transmitters do
not interfere with other radio equipment operating in the same area by limiting the power emitted
to adjacent channels and at different frequency offsets. For this reason, it is not necessary to
employ guard bands with TETRA devices, and ETSI does not set limits, other than total

5
47 C.F.R. § 2.1043(a).
6
The Association recognizes that there is an exception to the permissive change rules for
software defined radio (“SDR”) devices. 47 C.F.R. § 2.1043 (b)(3). However, the Association
believes that it would make for a more consistent process to waive the permissive change rule
rather than rely on individual manufacturers to apply for equipment certification as SDR.
7
47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3).
 -9-

transmitter power limits, to the transmitted signal level at different offsets within the authorized
bandwidth.

A waiver would pose very little risk of interference to other Part 90 operations due to
TETRA’s adjacent channel performance. The Association is attaching an analysis of the
potential performance of TETRA equipment in the United States. 8 Using Adjacent Channel
Power Ratio (“ACPR”) to measure the quantification of interference, this analysis demonstrates
that TETRA offers adjacent channel protection that is no poorer than, and often better than, other
narrowband systems currently operating in the LMR bands. 9 TETRA emissions only marginally
exceed the emissions masks, for example with Emission Mask B only at the shoulders between
10 kHz and 10.5 kHz from the center. 10 In sum, TETRA can co-exist without negative impact to
adjacent channels. As well, TETRA is robust enough so that it is adequately protected from
interference.

Additionally, TETRA operations in more than one hundred countries provide further
evidence that the technology can co-exist well with other technologies. The country of Spain has
provided the Association with written certification of this fact. New Zealand has recommended
that P25, TETRA and analogue devices can co-exist, specifically by adopting rules allowing for
the overlay of TETRA and APCO P25 digital channels on the existing analog channel roster.
And, a CEPT analysis, using Monte Carlo Simulation, studied the adjacent channel compatibility
of 400 MHz TETRA and analog FM PMR, and found that under everyday conditions the
technologies are able to co-exist without guard bands

A waiver will facilitate more efficient and enhanced performance. Continued application
of the rules, by way of contrast, would frustrate the underlying purpose of Sections 90.209 and
90.210 by depriving the public of the benefits of TETRA technology.

8
See Attachment A.
9
Id. at 7 and 9.
10
Attachment A at 2.
 -10-

III. A Waiver Would Achieve Significant Public Benefit

Granting the Association a waiver will yield significant benefits. With authority to
market products in the United States, manufacturers will be able to provide next generation
digital mobile radio technology used in more than 100 countries right now.

The TETRA standard has been successfully integrated into spectrum management
regimes in use throughout the world. The technology is used principally by public safety and
critical infrastructure entities, both public and private. While the public safety community in the
United Sates has adopted the P25 standard for a variety of reasons, many other entities
responsible for managing critical infrastructure would benefit substantially from access to
TETRA, which is particularly well suited to metropolitan and urban environments.

No other available LMR technology has the capabilities of TETRA, which combines
voice (two-way radio), mobile telephony, status messaging, short data service, packet data up to
28.8k/bits, enhanced data (up to 600k/bits), encryption, and more. TETRA also supports a wide-
range of supplementary services, many of which are exclusive to TETRA.

There are a large number of TETRA product manufacturers worldwide, including U.S.
companies such as Motorola and Tyco/Harris. This, coupled with the compatibility of products
by the different manufactures due to the open standard, allows for greater competition and lower
prices.
 -11-

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, the Association requests waivers of Sections 90.209,
90.210 and 2.1043, permitting the TETRA standard to be used in the United States. These
requested waivers will serve the public interest, as the availability of TETRA in the United States
will open the U.S. market to a low cost, fully-interoperable, and cutting edge technology much
needed by public safety and private mobile radio users.

Respectfully submitted,

THE TETRA ASSOCIATION

_________________________
Henry Goldberg
Laura Stefani

GOLDBERG, GODLES, WIENER & WRIGHT

1229 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 429-4900

Its Attorneys

November 20, 2009

Attachment A
 ANALYSIS OF THE ABILITY FOR TETRA TO CO-EXIST WITH OTHER LMR
TECHNOLOGY IN THE UNITED STATES

PURPOSE
The purpose of this technical note is to analyze TETRA’s impact on other
technologies used for Land Mobile Radio (LMR) in the United States and to show
that it can co-exist without causing interference to users of such technologies.

SCOPE
The scope is to explore the impact that TETRA will have on other LMR technologies
deployed in the U.S., focusing specifically on the impact on radios using adjacent
channels.

REFERENCES
TIA Telecommunications Systems Bulletin, TSB-88.1-C, Wireless Communications
Systems Performance In Noise And Interference Limited Situations, Part1:
Recommended Methods For Technology Independent Performance Modeling.

BACKGROUND
1. The introduction of the TETRA digital radio standard into the U.S. marketplace
requires a waiver of certain FCC technical rules, namely the occupied bandwidth and
emissions mask requirements. This, in turn, requires a showing of the feasibility of
coordination of suitable spectrum assignments and implementation within available
spectrum alongside legacy systems.

2. TETRA systems use π/4-DQPSK modulation with 25 KHz channel spacing;

supporting a transmission rate of 36 Kbps. TETRA is a Time Division Multiple Access
(TDMA) standard, where time is divided into slots. A TETRA frame consists of 4 time
slots, i.e., each RF carrier includes 4 logical channels, and therefore can be
considered a 6.25 KHz equivalent technology in terms of use of spectrum.

METHODOLOGY
TETRA can be treated as equivalent to the aggregation of two 12.5 kHz assignments
or as equivalent to an aggregation of four 6.25 kHz assignments. The adjacent
channel interference is effectively determined by measuring the adjacent channel
power ratio (ACPR) as experienced by receivers that would be operating in adjacent
channels. It can also be modeled by using measured transmitter spectral power
densities (SPD) and the receiver filter characteristics for adjacent channel systems.
TSB-88.1-C [1] provides measured SPD values for several modulation types as well
as a method for modeling the adjacent channel power ratio for various receiver filter
characteristics.

The following section provides an analysis of the ACPR performance of TETRA and
other systems.
TETRA PERFORMANCE AGAINST REGULATORY CRITERIA
To operate on 25 kHz channel spacing in the UHF or 800 MHz bands, TETRA would
be required to meet Emission Mask B, C or G and to be constrained within 20 kHz
authorized bandwidth. Emission Mask B is defined in Table 1.

Table 1 - Emission Mask B

Displacement Frequency, Minimum Resolution Bandwidth (Hz)
fd (% of the Authorized Attenuation
Bandwidth) (dB)
50 ≤ fd ≤ 100 25 300
100 < fd ≤ 250 35 300
fd > 250 43+10 log(P) Except where otherwise stated,
on any frequency
removed from the carrier
frequency by more than 250%
of the authorized bandwidth, a
resolution bandwidth of at
least 100 kHz must be used for
frequencies to be
measured below 1000 MHz

TETRA’s emission is shown in comparison to Emission Mask B as in the chart below.

It can be seen that TETRA emissions may marginally exceed the mask at the
“shoulders” between 10 kHz and 10.5 kHz offset from the channel center. This
divergence from the prescribed 25 kHz emission mask requires a waiver of the FCC
rules.

Similarly, at the measurement resolution bandwidth (RBW) specified TETRA

emissions marginally exceed Mask C and Mask G. At lower measurement RBW (200
as opposed to the 300 Hz specified), TETRA can be shown to meet Mask B, and can
also meet Masks G and C at an RBW of 100 Hz.

2
Emission mask definitions, as a basis for certification of equipment, are artificial
constructs that attempt to model the impact of emissions on systems occupying
adjacent and other channels. However, they do not adequately differentiate the real-
world impact of different technologies. A technology may exceed an emission mask
under certain measurement conditions but may actually couple less power into a co-
channel or adjacent channel system than would a technology (such as OpenSky in
the instance of FCC Part 90 operations) that fits within the prescribed emission mask.

The Adjacent Channel Power Ratio (ACPR) coupled with the typical victim receiver
filter characteristics is more directly applicable to technology co-existence and
spectrum coordination, as it provides a measurable quantification of interference
(Aggregated Channels).

The chart below shows the interference characteristic of a TETRA emission

(measured values from [1]) assigned as an aggregation of two 12.5 kHz assignments
(i.e., centered interstitial to two assignments). The receiver filter indicated is a typical
narrowband (12.5 kHz) FM analog receiver located on the next adjacent 12.5 kHz
assignment. The resultant ACPR, as coupled from TETRA into the adjacent
narrowband FM receiver, is 68.2 dB.

3
In comparison, a 12.5 kHz FM analog system offers an ACPR to the adjacent
assignment of only 60.7 dB, as shown below.

For further comparison, P25 Phase 1, using C4FM modulation, provides an ACPR of
only 57.5 dB to an adjacent 12.5 kHz FM system.

This comparison can be carried further to 6.25 kHz channel assignments, assuming
treatment of TETRA as an aggregation of four channels. However, that comparison is
largely a matter of comparing the adjacent channel power and receiver filters of
digital modulation schemes that aggregate channels similar to TETRA, as there is

4
little expectation that 6.25 kHz narrowband systems will be adopted to any significant
degree in LMR bands.

The receiver filter characteristics of 4L-FSK provide a suitable reference for

comparison of TETRA versus Filtered 4-Level FM modulation (F4FM is a proposed
modulation in a Phase 2 Project 25 TDMA system) ACPR on adjacent 6.25 kHz
channels. In this situation TETRA is treated as the aggregation of four 6.25 kHz
assignments (centered two and half channels, or 15.625 kHz from the next 6.25 kHz
channel), and F4FM is treated as the aggregation of two 6.25 kHz channels
(centered one and a half channels, or 9.375 kHz from the next 6.25 kHz assignment).

The chart below shows the ACPR of the TETRA assignment to a receiver on the next
adjacent 6.25 kHz, an ACPR of 71.4 dB.

For comparison an F4FM system ACPR to a receiver on the adjacent 6.25 kHz
channel (shown in the chart below) is 66.5 dB, roughly 5 dB worse than the TETRA
ACPR.

5
TETRA’s adjacent channel coupled power into adjacent 25 kHz FM receivers is not
as high as other technologies occupying 25 kHz channel assignments and not that
high when compared to equipment with adjacent channel selectivity found in digital
receivers and high selectivity analog receivers. The chart below shows the TETRA
ACPR for 25 kHz adjacency to a 25 kHz FM analog receiver.

6
The table below summarizes the ACPR for 25 kHz channel assignments for EDACS,
FM Analog, iDEN, OpenSky and TETRA 25 kHz offset from FM analog receivers with
wideband and NPSPAC band receivers.

EDACS EDACS FM Analog iDEN OpenSky TETRA

Tx Æ (NPSPAC) (WB) (WB) (F4GFSK)
Victim Rx
↓
FM Analog 62.6dB 57.7dB 78.9dB 64.2dB 57.8dB 60.3dB
WB
(16 kHz
ENBW)

FM Analog 66.5dB 63.7dB 82.7dB 68.8dB 64.3dB 71.9dB

NPSPAC
(11.1 kHz
ENBW)

IDEN & 61.4dB 56.1dB 80.1dB 64.6dB 55.9dB 69.2dB

TETRA
18 kHz ENBW

Apparent in this comparison is that TETRA can provide better adjacent channel
protection than some other 25 kHz technologies that the FCC has approved, such as
OpenSky, provided adjacent channel receiver filters are relatively selective. In terms
of the practical application, it demonstrates that TETRA can co-exist at 25 kHz
channel offsets from 25 kHz receivers with high adjacent channel selectivity and that
adjacent channel assignments could be achieved even with less selective adjacent
channel receivers.

TETRA AS THE VICTIM RECEIVER

TETRA appears sufficiently robust to not be unduly interfered with by other
modulations, with the possible exception of OpenSky. It does not appear to require
any particular protection from 25 kHz adjacent channels, and is adequately protected
from 12.5 kHz assignments provided the TETRA assignment is treated as an
aggregate of two 12.5 kHz assignments (18.75 kHz offset).

From this analysis, TETRA could be located within 800 MHz commercial band,
adjacent to iDEN and other 25 kHz bandwidth systems, or in other UHF bands that
remain primarily utilized on 25 kHz assignments.

7
8
CONCLUSION
The conclusion of this analysis is that TETRA, treated either as an aggregation of two
12.5 kHz channels or as four 6.25 kHz channels, offers equal or better adjacent
channel protection than do other narrowband systems that are currently permitted to
operate in the LMR bands in the U.S. It can co-exist at interstitial offsets to 12.5 kHz
and 6.25 kHz receivers without negative impact on the adjacent channel
assignments. It also can co-exist with existing 25 kHz channelized systems, at least
as well as other 25 kHz technologies already approved by the FCC.