.

5.9.11.
This
copy
to
FRA:

NaDonwide Intelligent Railroad Wireless –
iRW
 Jo.Strang@dot.gov

Grady.Choen@dot.gov

     For passenger and freight rail roads, including for PTC
 Mark.Hartong@dot.gov


Skybridge
Spectrum
FoundaOon
&
related
LLCs
(“SkyTel”),

April
2011


Concept paper & business proposal outline  This
version
v 2.0 is
for
filing
before
the
FCC
in:

WT
Docket
No.
11‐79
:

Contents
 Wireless TelecommunicaDons Bureau Seeks Comment on Spectrum 
Needs for the ImplementaDon oQhe PosiDve Train Control 
1.   Background  Provisions of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. 






1.1



Skybridge
&
related
LLCs
 Skytel
Notes:

As
of
May
2,
2011,
this
has
been
sent
to
at
least:

AMTRAK,
SCRRA,
Long
Island
Railroad,
Metro
North
Railroad,
NJ







1.2



Spectrum
 Transit,
DART,
and
all
members
of
PTC
220
LLC
(via
their
counsel).








1.3



Need
and
opportunity
 A
copy
will
also
be
sent
to
Administrators
at
FRA
and
FTC,
and

other
authoriOes.







1.4



Tech
and
systems

See
p.
13:
New
plan:
federal

2.   Business proposal outline  agencies
secure
the
described

spectrum
primarily
by
the
noted







2.1



Phase
1:

Several
or
all:

(a)
NEC:
Amtrak,
Metro
North,
LIRR,








NJT
&
others,
(b)
TX:
DART
etc,
(c)
CA:
SCRRA,
etc.
(d)
(?)
 cost
reimbursement,
and
affording


 
  (All public‐agency railroads under federal plan: see next page.)  use
of
other
spectrum
bands,
and

secondary
cogniOve‐radio
use
in







2.2



Phase
2:

NaOonwide
including
freight
railroads
 30‐50
MHz.









2.3



Phase
3:

MulO‐mode
Intelligent
TransportaOon
Systems
–
mITS
–
wireless
 Under
this
plan, public  railroads 
have no cost or delay.

3.   Exhibits 







3.1



Blocking
misconcepOons








3.2



FCC
11‐64
re
MCLM
A‐block
AMTS
spectrum


This is not a solicitaDon or offer to enter a contract or business, and provides no representaDons or warranDes.

A
copy
of
this
will
be
posted
on
Scribd:

Google
“intelligent
railroad
wireless
SkyTel”.


v
2.0


1.1

Skybridge
&
supporOng
LLCs
(together
“SkyTel”)


Skybridge
Spectrum
FoundaOon

ATLIS
Wireless
LLC

For
more
background,
see
the
papers
at
the

V2G
LLC

Scribd
link
to
the
leo.

Environmentel
LLC

Verde
Systems
LLC

Licenses
can
easily
be
confirmed
on
the
FCC

Telesaurus
Holdings
GB
LLC

ULS
system.

Intelligent
TransportaOon
&
Monitoring
Wireless
LLC




Berkeley
California

Re
AMTS
licenses,
see
also
the
“Spectrum”




www.scribd.com/warren_havens/shelf


page
below.




510
841
2220
‐
main




510
848
7797
‐
Warren
Havens


Skybridge
is
a
nonprofit,
IRC
§501(c)(3)
private
operaOng
foundaOon,
holding
AMTS,
220
MHz,
M‐LMS
and
other
FCC
licensed

spectrum
naOonwide,
obtained
by
outright
charitable
donaOons
from
the
LLCs
listed
above.


ATLIS
is
an
operaOons
support
enOty
for
the
other
above‐listed
enOOes
which
hold
FCC
licenses.


The
other
LLCs
together
hold
many
FCC
licenses,
and
with
Skybridge
hold:

‐ 

217‐222
MHz:

1‐3
MHz
depending
on
part
of
the
naOon.


‐ 

900
MHz:

6‐7
MHz
depending
on
part
of
the
naOon).

‐ 

35
and
43
MHz”

300
to
600
kHz
pending
on
part
of
the
naOon.

For
Meteor
Burst
CommunicaOons.

‐ 

The
200*
and
900
MHz
licenses
cover
about
85%
of
the
naOon.
*100%
counOng
claimed
G
Lakes
A:
see
next
p.

‐ 

The
35
and
43
MHz
cover
virtually
all
of
the
naOon.


Warren
Havens
is
the
President,
and
the
majority,
controlling
owner,
and
founder.

Jimmy
Stobaugh
is
GM
and
also
an
owner.



No
venture
capital.


SkyTel:  Unique and long‐term spectrum and acDons for the naDon’s criDcal transport, energy, environment and emergency 
wireless needs, leading with the non‐profit approach to criDcal public‐benefit applicaDons.  Spectrum, tech development, and 
deployment‐operaDng strategic partnerships.  
1. Background section follows
1.2

Spectrum
–
1:
exisOng
railroad

Railroad
hold
and
use
mostly
160
MHz,
and
some
900
MHz.

PTC
220
LLC
holds
certain
220‐222
MHz
for
its
members,

purportedly
for
(or
including)
PTC.

In
the
SkyTel
plan
outlined
here,
substanOal
200
and
900
MHz
will
be
added
by
SkyTel
for
railroads’
use
in
phases
to

accommodate
all
iRW
operaOng
and
passenger
needs.

In
later
phases
where
iRW
expands
to
support
and
be
supported

by
mITS.



1.  160
MHz
to
200
MHz
can
use
one
efficient
RF
Front
End
and
antennas
(below
and
higher
also:
the
wider
range
will

increase
tech
and
equipment
market
to
the
large
high‐band
VHF
markets).

2.  Use
of
217‐222
MHz
(“200
MHz”)
can
allow
reorganizaOon
and
beser
use
of
the
160
MHz:
shio
traffic
to
the
200

MHz,
then
reorganize
the
160
MHz
and
put
it
back
to
beser
use,
with
tech
that
more
than
complies
with
FCC

narrowbanding
at
that
Ome
(12.5
or
6.25
kHz
equivalent).

This
can
all
be
on
30‐
1,000
MHz
CogniOve
Radio
(at

least
one
base
model,
with
perhaps
variaOons).

3.  Railroad
900
MHz
narrowband
can
be
augmented
by
SkyTel’s
much
wider
LMS
900
MHz,
again,
with
one
efficient

RF
Front
End
and
antennas,
and
using
the
same
CogniOve
Radio
(down
to
700
MHz
also:
the
wider
range
will

increase
tech
and
equipment
market
to
the
large
700‐900
MHz
PMR
markets).

4.  In
sum,
railroads’
exisOng
spectrum
can
added
to,
and
beser
used
by,
addiOonal
spectrum
in
the
same
broad
range

in
which
CogniOve
Radio
can
effecOvely
span:
This
will
increase
by some order of magnitude
ulOmately
wireless

data
capacity,
and
also
greatly
increase
reliability,
redundancy,
security,
etc.

Further
discussed
below.

 1.2

Spectrum
–
2:

SkyTel

(slide
1)
 This was prepared before FCC 11‐64.  That adds to SkyTel potenDally the A‐block in 2, 4, 5, 6.  See next slide. 

Spectrum
licenses
are
summarized
on
slide
2
above.

Below
and
next
slide
are
maps:

This
map
is
from
the
FCC.

It

show
the
areas
of
the
AMTS

geographic
licenses.


The
AMTS
A‐block
and
B‐
block
(each
500+500
kHz)

band
plan
is
in
the

Reference
materials
in
the

end
secOon
below.


All
SkyTel
AMTS
licenses
are

these
geographic
licenses.




First
construcOon
deadlines

are
in
2015‐2016
Ome
frame

on
some
spectrum.

No

deadline
on
the
rest.


.

#s
below
are
for
license
areas
above,
and:







‐

“A”
and
“B”
–
see
top
right.







‐

“n220”
=
5‐kHz
wide
channels.






‐

“w220”
=
12.5‐kHz
or
wider
channels.


1.  A
and
B
–

in
Boston
to
Philly,
etc.
AMTRAK,
NJT,
LIRR,
MetroN,
etc.

(And
n220
MHz:
150
kHz
worth.)

See
note
in
blue
above.


2.  B
–

Phily
to
DC
etc.

AMTRAK,
etc.

(And
minor
w220
MHz.)

3.  A
and
B.

(And
minor
w220
MHz.)

4.  B
–

including
DART
and
TX
core
ciOes.

(And
in
TX
and
western
parts:
w220
MHz:
450‐800
kHz
worth.)

5.  Formal
claim
before
FCC
to
A
block.

Related
to
FCC
11‐64
decision
(discussed
below).

(And
minor
n220
MHz.)

6.  B
–

including
SCRRA.

(And
n220
MHz:
300+
kHz
worth.)

7.  A
and/or
B
depending
on
area
(some
of
each
sold
to
power
uOliOes).

Sufficient
for
iRW
and
mITS.

(And
n220
MHz:
300+
kHz.)

8.  A
.

(And
n220
MHz:
300+
kHz
worth.)

9.  A
and
B.

(And
w220
MHz:
approx
800
kHz
worth.)

10.  B.

Also,
we
have
a
signed
contract
to
buy
A,
under
which
B
and
A
go
to
seller
in
State
of
NV
and
small
surrounding
pieces.

This
is
in
court
to

get
contract
closed.

SkyTel
believes
it
has
a
strong
case:
court
documents
available.

(And
w220
MHz:
550
to
800
kHz
worth.)

1.2

Spectrum
–
2:

SkyTel

(slide
2)

See
preceding
slide’s
note
on
FCC
11‐64.


This
is:

In the Ma\er of MariDme CommunicaDons/ Land Mobile LLC…. Order to 
Show Cause… FCC
11‐64,
Released
April
19,
2001
(the
“OSC”).


Exhibit
2
below
includes
the
first
four
pages
of
this
OSC
with
notes
by
Skytel
relevant
to
this
presentaOon.


A
full
copy
is:

From
FCC
here:

hsp://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2011/dd110420.html
(last
item).

And
from
Scribd
here:

hsp://www.scribd.com/doc/53477401/FCC‐11‐64‐Order‐to‐Show‐Cause‐Revoke‐Repay‐etc‐to‐MariOme‐CommunicaOons‐Land‐Mobile‐LLC‐AMTS‐licenses‐4‐19‐2011



If final results are what the FCC asserts in 11‐64, revocaDon and cancellaDon of all MCLM licenses, then SkyTel enDDes will 
be the lawful high bidders in AucDon 61 for AMTS A‐block in areas 2, 4, 5 and 6: areas now held by MCLM (see preceding 
page), and thus hold virtually all AMTS in the naDon. 
(The
site‐based
AMTS
is
bogus:
see
indicaOon
in
11‐64,
etc.
If
FCC

concludes
this
as
11‐64
indicated,
it
removes
the
site‐based
encumbrance
to
geographic
licenses.

FCC
rule
§80.385(c).)


SCRAA,
AMTRAK,
DART,
apparently
LIRR
and
Metro
North,
and
others,
appear
to
have
decided
that
the
MCLM
AMTS

geographic
and
site‐based
licenses
were
valid.
However,
SkyTel
showed them,
their
asorneys,
and
others
involved
in

Railroad
wireless,
that
these
MCLM
licenses
were
clearly
invalid,
under
easy
to
see
facts
and
law
and
that
MCLM
and
its

licenses
were
disqualified
–as
the
FCC
explains
in
11‐64‐‐
at
a
Ome
the
FCC
had
already
commenced
the
invesOgaOon
of

MCLM,
ciOng
the
discrepancies
in
public
lesers
SkyTel
provided
to
these
enOOes.
SCRAA
hired
for
due
diligence
a
MCLM

.
 affiliate
(Mobex)
asorney
for
“due
diligence,”
etc.

It is unlawful
under
the
CommunicaOons
Act,
ARRA,
28
USC,
State
procurement
and
other
law,
for
a
public
enOty
including

railroad
to
try
to
buy
an
asset
that
is
invalid
and
illicit,
or
where
evidence
of
that
is
clear
and
a
fair
assessment
would

conclude
that.

Public
agencies
should
be
the
first
to
defend
the
law, and not try to get DC a\orneys, brokers, and others to 
launder illicit assets and set up unlawful arrangements.

(Agencies
also
cannot
withhold
documentaOon
of
such
masers

under
public‐documents
laws.)


Before
and
aoer
FCC
11‐64,
SkyTel
pursues
what
is
noted
on
page
2
above
and
otherwise
herein.

We
seek
to
benefit
public

enOOes,
in
large
part
on
nonprofit
basis
(the
Skybridge
component),
but
oppose
if
they
act
against
public
law
and
interest.



Note: The nature of this memo is cooperaDve and construcDve.  However, SkyTel does not waive its legal posiDons before the 
FCC and courts, and these are in fact useful for the purposes of this memo, to benefit US railroads, if fairly understood. 
1.2

Spectrum
–
2:

SkyTel

(slide
3)

AMTS
Band
Plan


Source:
hsp://wireless.fcc.gov/aucOons/default.htm?id=57&job=aucOon_summary

Also
within
doc
at:
hsp://www.scribd.com/doc/36614169/Sky‐Tel‐Atlis‐900‐200‐40‐MHz‐for‐Smart‐Transport‐Energy‐Environment‐V3‐9‐10‐Public


1.2

Spectrum
–
2:

SkyTel

(slide
4)

Skytel’s
enOOes
FCC
licenses
are
described
here
(but
the
AMTS
is
beser
described
above):

hsp://www.scribd.com/doc/36614169/Sky‐Tel‐Atlis‐900‐200‐40‐MHz‐for‐Smart‐Transport‐Energy‐Environment‐V3‐9‐10‐Public
 Note:
Below
depicts
M‐LMS
and
N‐
Below
are
a
few
items
from
the
long
document
at
the
link
above
 LMS
sub
bands.

We
don’t
have
to
use

the
channelizaOon
depicted,
but
can

use
any
configuraOon.


.


Yellow
above
are
areas
SkyTel
holds
M‐LMS
A‐block
licenses:
items
‘[2]’
and

‘[4]’
in
red
in

chart
at
right.




As
noted
in
chart
notes,
the
N‐LMS
spectrum
in
‘[1]’
and
‘[3]’
can
also
be

used
for
ITS
purposes
(what
SkyTel
in
this
presentaOon
advocates
as
mITS).


In
the
yellow
and
non‐yellow
areas,
we
can
use
N‐LMS.



1.3

Need
and
opportunity

See
accompanying
paper
Skybridge
Commissioned
in
April
2011
by
Ron
Lindsey,
“Wireless
for
Railroads.”

Copy
also
at:

hsp://www.scribd.com/doc/53478557/Wireless‐for‐Railroads‐By‐Ron‐Lindsey‐April‐2011



This
paper
addresses
the
extraordinary
opportuniOes
railroads
have,
both
individually
and
collecOvely

as
an
industry,
to
advance
their
operaOons
via
the
use
of
advanced
wireless
technologies,
as
well
as

to
improve
the
efficiency
of
their
spectrum
usage.
This
perspecOve
is
expanded
to
consider
the

relaOonship
of
the
freight
rail
industry
with
passenger
rail,
other
transportaOon
modes,
and
the

intersecOon
with
public
safety.
This
is
a
STRATEGIC
PERSPECTIVE
based
upon
idenOfying
both
the

Demand
for
and
Supply
of
wireless
technologies
which
provides
the
basis
for
structuring
an
approach

for
Moving
Forward.


See
accompanying
paper
for
FRA
in
Dec.
2007
by
Ron
Lindsey,
“OpportuniOes
for
Wireless
Technologies
in

Passenger
and
Freight
Rail
OperaOons,”
with
comments
added
by
SkyTel.

Copy
also
at:


hsp://www.scribd.com/doc/53702580/Wireless‐Tech‐in‐Rail‐OperaOons‐2007‐Ron‐Lindsey


SkyTel
agrees.

But
SkyTel
comes
from
the
radio‐spectrum,
‐tech,
and
‐systems
perspecOve:

Business

cases
and
applicaOons
rest
upon
that
pracOcal
foundaOon.

That
requires
consideraOon
of:

‐

What
spectrum
is
available
on
primary
licensed,
and
secondary
use
(via
certain
CogniOve
Radio
(CR)

funcOons).

‐

What
technology,
and
related
equipment
and
systems,
are
best:
here,
CogniOve
Radio
is
clearly
best

in
tech,
and
equipment
and
systems
can
be
configured
with
that
(and
are
different
than
non
CR

systems).


See
also
Exhibit
1
below:
Blocking
misconcepOons.

1.4 Tech and systems

CogniOve
Radio
including
SDR
(more
fully,
CR‐CC:
see
slide
15).

To
enable:
use
of
mulOple
radio
bands
from
30
to

1,000
MHz,
mulO
protocols,
mulO
bandwidths,
frequency
occupancy
sensing,
frequency
and
power
agility,
max

performance
of
co‐channel
systems,
and
the
various
applicaOons
and
security
measures
needed.

E.g.,


‐ 

The
Virginia
Tech
project:
hsp://www.ece.vt.edu/news/ar10/cogradioandrailway.php


A
Wireless@VT
research
team
is
adapOng
Virginia
Tech
cogniOve
radio
technology
to
improve
safety
and
operaOons

of
the
naOon’s
railways.The
effort
is
funded
through
the
Federal
Railway
AdministraOon’s
Office
of
Research
and

Development
and
dovetails
with
the
PosiOve
Train
Control
(PTC)
technology
being
implemented
under
the
U.S.
Rail

Safety
Improvement
Act
of
2008.
PTC
is
expected
to
be
implemented
by
2015
and
to
include
wireless

communicaOon
and
GPS
navigaOon
throughout
the
rail
system.


‐ 

SkyTel
is
commencing
work
on
CR
in
30‐1,000
MHz,
possibly
with
a
Virginia
Tech‐
WICAT
(as
of
date
of
the

presentaOon,
v.1,
the
arrangement
is
in
discussion
but
not
yet
made):
hsp://www.ece.vt.edu/news/ar08/wicat.html



‐ 

SkyTel
has
35
and
43
MHz
naOonwide
for
Meteor
Burst
CommunicaOons
(MBC),
essenOal
for
full
US
coverage,

terrestrial
wireless
redundancy,
etc.

MBC
by
its
nature
required
dynamic
spectrum
access,
and
lends
itself
to

CogniOve
Radio,
as
does
use
of
the
rest
of
the
30‐50
MHz
band,
which
is
ideal
for
MBC
but
generally
not
used
(vs.

higher
bands)
for
modern
terrestrial
land
mobile
wireless.

See:

hsp://www.scribd.com/collecOons/2618807/Meteor‐Burst‐CommunicaOons‐MBC‐Systems‐US‐and‐Earth


hsp://www.scribd.com/doc/52643386/Dynamic‐Spectrum‐Access‐and‐Meteor‐Burst‐CommunicaOons


2. Business proposal outline follows
2.1

Phase
1
‐

Several
or
all
of
(a)
NEC:
Amtrak,
Metro
North,
LIRR,
NJT
&
others,
(b)
TX:
DART
etc.,
(c)
CA:

SCRRA,
etc.,
and/or
(d)
other.

(All
public‐agency
railroad
under
federal
plan:
see
next
page.)


1.

150‐300
kHz
in
AMTS. [i] (A mulDple increase in “EffecDve Spectrum” when CogniDve Radio used.)    “      [1] 
2.

100

kHz
in
n220
MHz
or
w220
MHz.

[2] 
“ 
 
“ 
 
“ 
 
“ 
 
“





[1] 
3.

500

kHz
in
M‐LMS
spectrum.

[3] 
 
“ 
 
“ 
 
“ 
 
“
 
 
“






[1] 
4.

Lease
for
3‐year
trial
phase
of
all
above
spectrum.

On
a
non‐profit
cost‐reimbursement
basis.

[4]  Items
4‐5


in
this
V

5.

OpOon
to
purchase
any
or
all
of
above
at
appraised
fair
market
value
at
end
of
trial
phase.

[5]  2.0:
See

next
page.

6.

Trial
includes
contribuOng
to
CogniOve
Radio
project
(see
slides
above)
and
planning
toward
Phase
2.

7.

OpOon
to
conOnue
lease
on
non‐profit
cost‐reimbursement
basis,
and
renew
purchase
opOon,
if
elect
to

parOcipate
in
Phase
2. (See Phase 2 slide.) 
8.

SkyTel
has
put
opOon
to
sell
at
same
fair
market
value
basis
[5]
at
end
of
Phase
1
if
at
least
3
major
metro

railroads
or
freight
railroads
do
not
enter
Phase
2
(from out of Phase 1, or direct into Phase 2). 
I
sum,
Skytel
does
not
seek
profit,
if
railroads
cooperate
on
a
reasonable
path
for
iRW
(Intelligent
Railroad
Wireless,
which

may
have
a
role
in
mITS),
and
SkyTel
will

provide
long‐term
security
to
the
spectrum
(perpetual
as
explained
in
reading

Phase
1,
2,
and
3
together,
via
leases
and
purchase
opOons).

This
is
consistent
with
SkyTel’s
public
statements
for
years.


[i]  QuanOty
depending
on
parOcular
railroad/
area
need.

[1] “EffecOve
Spectrum”=
spectrum
per
unit
of
Ome
and
coverage
area
at
usable

signal‐to‐noise
raOo.
This
is
the
real
measure
of
usable
spectrum,
not
spectrum
per
se.

CR
&
CC
(see
below)
mulOply
EffecOve
Spectrum.



[2]  n220
and
m220
are
defined
in
slide
1.2

Spectrum
–
2:

SkyTel

(slide
1).
CR
can
use
n220
and
m220.

[3]  This
is
FCC‐designated
“Intelligent
TransportaOon
Systems”
spectrum.

See
above
slide.


[4]  To
be
figured:
a
share
of
SkyTel
operaOonal
costs
asributed
to
iRW
and
mITS,
to
be
reinvested
in
iRW
and
mITS
with
accounOng

presented.

Federal
funding
cooperaOvely
sought
to
cover
this
for
railroads
parOcipaOng,
but
no
assurance
of
success.


[5]  By
3
naOonally‐recognized
wireless
spectrum
appraisers:
SkyTel
and
Railroads
each
pick
1,
and
those
2
pick
a
3rd.
To
be
confidenOal.

Further note:  On CogniDve Radio (CR) system basis, it is likely that in all or most all geographic parts of railroad systems, a mulDple more 
spectrum than indicated above can be used in given Dme periods, while also used for other complementary Intelligent TransportaDon Systems 
and associated smart infrastructure applicaDons. CogniDve Radio can assign spectrum in Dme and space instantly and precisely, and when 
various uses and systems access same spectrum (Co‐Channel) are Coordinated by one system (CC), this ability is further enhanced.  On and 
EffecDve Spectrum basis, CR‐CC will provide huge gains in real‐world system capacity and resultant applicaDons’ quanDDes and qualiDes. 
2.1

Phase
1
(cont’d)

‐

Federal
support
proposed,
for
no
cost
or
wait
for
public
railroads



SkyTel
will
discuss
with
DOT
FRA,
FTC,
and
NTIA
to
discuss
potenOal
interest
in
this
presentaOon’s
plan,
and
also

discuss
with
relevant
Congressional
commisees.

This may clear the way for all railroads to proceed with new wireless for their criDcal operaDons, including PTC, 
without delay and irregulariDes* re 217‐220 MHz and other spectrum proposed herein.   For
example:

1.

Federal
enOOes
may
provide
the
cost‐reimbursement
noted
above
for
the
perpetual
(upon
sequenOal
FCC
license

renewal)
the
spectrum
leases
noted
above.

This
will
include
costs
of
SkyTel
work
for
US
mITS
and
associated

work,*
under
approved
budget,
or
a
substanOal
part
of
this
cost.

(*
This
work
is
in
the
public
domain,
for

federally‐promoted
ITS
purposes,
and
also
for
smart
grid,
environmental
protecOon,
and
emergency
response.


This
is
pursued
in
part
via
publicly
funded
University
experts:
UC
Berkeley,
Virginia
Tech,
and
others.)


2.

The
spectrum
purchase
opOons
and
their
exercise
at
“FMV”
noted
above
may
be
compensated
not
primarily
in

cash
but
primarily
by
NTIA
making
available
to
SkyTel
rights
to
use
addiOonal
spectrum
(to
what
SkyTel
enOOes

hold
now),
such
as
in
lower
400
MHz,
and
in
the
30‐50
MHz
range*
(which
is
underused
in
Ome‐space
spectrum

occupancy)
for
its
planned
naOonwide
Meteor‐Burst‐CommunicaOons
network.




*

This
would
be
on
a
CogniOve‐Radio
non‐interfering
basis,
but
otherwise
at
licensed
power
and
parameters

suitable
for
this
network,
where
it
is
designed
and
operated
for
the
public‐interest
purposes
SkyTel
pursues:

wireless
for
smart
transport
(including
rail),
energy,
environment
and
emergency
systems
(most
of
which
directly

serve
stated
federal
goals,
and
the
core
services
of
which
will
be
at
no
cost
to
federal
enOOes,
and
general
public):



‐


See:

hsp://www.scribd.com/collecOons/2618807/Meteor‐Burst‐CommunicaOons‐MBC‐Systems‐US‐and‐Earth?page=2



Also,
FCC
would
grant
SkyTel
certain
waivers,
and
grant
backlogged
SkyTel
license
applicaOons,
in
accord
with
these
purposes.


In sum, SkyTel would provide spectrum for PTC naDonwide, and in exchange receive operaDonal cash and spectrum to publicly 
advance other, more broad Intelligent Transport, infrastructure, Environment and Emergency systems in the naDon:  “US 
Green Wireless” for short.  This should be under public‐private‐nonprofit partnership, as SkyTel pursues.  

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

*

Without
uniformity
naOonwide
in
core spectrum and its accessibility,
railroads
will
likely
end
up
with
irregular
wireless
systems
in
capacity,

technologies,
core
applicaOons,
etc.
and
this
will
decrease
implementaOon
speed,
safety
and
reliability,
fuel
and
operaOons
efficiency
gains;

increase
costs;
and
erode
future
enhancements.

2.2

Phase
2
‐


NaOonwide
including
freight
railroads.


This
will
be
presented
in
a
version
2
of
this
presentaOon.


It
will
extend
Phase
1
for
the
purposes
noted
herein.


It
will
add
to
the
benefits,
and
cost‐benefits,
to
the
parOcipaOng
railroads.


SkyTel
will
seek
railroad
input
on
both
phase
1
and
phases
2
and
3
to
maximize
opportuniOes
for
the
goal
of

this
presentaOon,
and
may
vary
its
current
proposed
and
contemplate
terms.




If
freight
railroads
are
not
sufficiently
interested,
sOll,
passenger
railroads
may
be.

Ideally,
due
to
the
nature

of
interacOon
between
freight
and
passenger
railroad
systems,
both
forms
of
railroads
would
be

substanOally
involved.

2.3

Phase
3
‐


MulO‐modal
Intelligent
TransportaOon
Systems
(mITS) wireless


This
is
reflected
in
SkyTel’s
Scribd
documents
at
below
link.

Further
informaOon
be
presented
in
a
later

version
of
this
presentaOon.


www.scribd.com/warren_havens/shelf




In sum,
the
proposed
MulO‐Band
CogniOve
Radio
with
inter‐system
Co‐channel
CoordinaOon
(MB‐CR‐CC)

(see
pages
12
and
10)
will
enable
some
order
of
magnitude
more
capacity
and
improve
reliability,
verses

mobile
radio
systems
(even
currently
proposed
new
digital
ones)
on
railroad‐by‐railroad
basis.


This
will
allow
the
same
regional
and
naOonwide
systems,
that
commence
with iRW,
to
be
expanded
with

more
spectrum
and
antenna
sites
(and
other
improvements
for
non‐rail,
wider‐ranging
transportaOon

vehicles,
such
as
ad
hoc
mesh
nets),
to
serve
mulOple
Modes
of
Intelligent
TransportaOon
Systems
(mITS).


TransportaOon
is,
for
the
most
part,
mulO‐modal,
freight
and
human.




Smart
wireless
is
needed
for
safe
and
efficient
transport,
and
this
should
ulOmately
be
across
the
various

modes,
not
mode‐by‐mode
with
gaps.

Gaps
erode
safety,
efficiency
and
effecOveness,
benefits/cost,

redundancy,
etc.


SkyTel
has
asempted
masers
in
this
presentaOon
on
railroad
‐enOty
and
‐associaOon
level,
and
do
not

believe
that
is
effecOve,
due
to
the
scope
and
long‐term
plan
involved.

Thus,
involvement
of
relevant

federal
enOOes
and
Congressional
commisees
appears
needed.

See
p.
13
above.

3. Exhibits follow
3.1



Exhibit
1.
Blocking
misconcepOons.


1.  Lower spectrum will go further. It will go nowhere by itself. Coverage range depends on many things. On higher
spectrum, a wider channel with processing gain may transmit a given amount of data at a given service level
further than lower more narrow channel. (A Jeep may get you over a mountain-pass back road, but a good road car may
get you to the other side on a highway quicker and with less loss. If you just have to deliver your goods, better to use both -
redundancy, which can increase capacity also.)

2.  Further-spaced base stations is good. It is not good if you want more spectrum reuse and efficiency and capacity,
and more reliability and redundancy, and also service to hand-portables. It may be a good way to start a wide-area
system, to get it in service quicker and cheaper, but is it not how you want to end up, if your applications will
continue and unless you think you will reverse the direction of modern civilization: it keeps talking more, even the
machines, and they need more data, thus more spectrum efficiency.

3.  You can mostly rely on wireless attorneys, technicians, and status quo. Commercial attorneys in US PMR have
not shown much expertise or integrity. I can give examples: one is that they blew it in advising railroads on MCLM
AMTS. Railroad wireless technicians are not assigned the big picture: See topic 3, “Need and Opportunity”
above: Mr. Lindsey talks about need first for technologists as opposed to technicians, for the major assessments
and direction and decisions. Railroad are clearly one of the best candidate for Cognitive Radios with diverse
critical applications (needing coordination), and multiple spectrum bands, protocols, channel widths, frequency
sensing and frequency and power agility, etc. It is not so complicated. Well it is, but the basic hardware and
software complexity is less than kids near real-life computer games. Narrowband wireless data on fixed channels,
with fixed protocols, and the like is a dinosaur, an abacus. Computer tech is now driving communications, including
wireless, not old radio tech and thinking: those are the tail on the dog now. This should be at top levels, with strategic
thinkers to consider longer and shorter term options.

4.  Wireless is a cost. In this age, if persons, companies, and important machines and systems do not think and set
up communications as a core function, they are “dead man walking.” It is a core function to exist and wireless is
more important than wired, especially for moving systems. It is also, for railroads, and opportunity to be a lot more
efficient, green, safe, and to eventually leverage modern railroad wireless infrastructure to host or be a part of
other critical wireless, and get fair rewards from that. But PTC for stand-alone wireless is a cost burden and not
realistic. It is not wise to say otherwise to the FCC, or use the Glendale accident to fish for public dollars.
The nature of this memo is cooperaDve and construcDve.  However, SkyTel does not waive its legal posiDons before the FCC and courts, or 
other posiDons indicated herein, and these are in fact useful for the purposes of this memo, to benefit US railroads, iRW and mITS. 
3.2


Exhibit
2.

FCC
11‐64


SkyTel
enOOes
were/
are
the
aucOon
61
compeOtors
and
peOOoners
(peOOons
to
deny
and
for
reconsideraOon),
noted
herein.
If
MCLM
aucOon‐obtained
licenses
are
revoked,
SkyTel
becomes
the
lawful
high

bidder
for
all
of
them.

Also,
the
indicated
auto‐cancelled
licenses
in
footnote
2,
the
MCLM
site‐based
licenses
in
the
US,
including
in
NE
Corridor,
S.
California,
and
Texas
Coast.

MCLM
seeks
to
sell
these.

[This
documents
conOnues.
We
provide
only
first
4
pages
here.]


SkyTel:
There
is
no
quesOon
that
railroads
do
not
need
any
200
MHz
spectrum
by
law
for
PTC,
or
for
tech
reasons,
nor
more
than
a
modest
amount
in
any
case
(not
1
MHz
as
SCRRA
asserted
with
no
need

showing).

Apparently,
from
public
documents,
200
MHz
is
being
jammed
on
transit
rail
by
“carrot
and
sOck”
some
other
railroads
associated
with
PTC
220
LLC.

While
it
may
be
a
fair
soluOon
by
commercial

choice,
that
does
not
jusOfy
misleading
the
FCC
as
to
nee,
or
illicit
spectrum
(see
FCC
11‐64)
laundering.

SkyTel
oposes
this
before
FCC,
courts,
and
States
(inspectors,
AG
offices,
etc.)