Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Liberty Communications, Inc.
and Sprint Nextel Corporation
Mediation No. TAM-50034
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 02-55
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  July 15, 2010 Released:  July 16, 2010
By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order we address a matter referred to us for de novo
review from Wave 3, Phase 2 mediation by the 800 MHz Transition Administrator (TA) involving a 
dispute between Liberty Communications, Inc. (Liberty), operator of a Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 
system in the Florida Panhandle, and Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint) (collectively, the Parties).1 The 
issues disputed in this case are:  alleged post-reconfiguration interference on some of Liberty’s 
replacement frequencies, Liberty’s continued operation on its pre-rebanding frequencies, and certain legal 
and consultant fees associated with investigating the alleged interference.
2. Based on our review of the mediation record, the Recommended Resolution submitted by 
the TA-appointed mediator in this case, and the Parties’ position statements, we find that: (a) Liberty is 
mistaken in its assumption that it is entitled to protection against adjacent channel interference; (b) 
Liberty is incorrect in claiming that it was assigned a less than comparable replacement channel at its 
Central Tower and East Point sites;2 (c) certain of Liberty’s claimed costs do not meet the Commission’s 
“minimum cost” standard;3 (d) Sprint should pay Liberty $60,320 in connection with the investigation of 
alleged interference to Liberty’s system; and (e) Liberty must discontinue operation on its pre-rebanding 
frequencies forthwith. 
II. BACKGROUND
3. The 800 MHz Report and Order and subsequent orders in this docket require Sprint to 
negotiate a Frequency Reconfiguration Agreement (FRA) with each 800 MHz licensee that is subject to 
rebanding.4 The FRA must provide for retuning of the licensee’s system to its new channel assignments 
  
1 Recommended Resolution, TAM-50034 (Jan. 21, 2009) (TA RR) at 1.
2 Nonetheless, and at Liberty’s option, we authorize the TA to assign a different replacement channel at one of the 
two sites, provided, however, that Liberty must bear the associated expense.
3 See Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC 
Rcd 9818, 9821 (2007) (Rebanding Cost Clarification Order).
4 See Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, 
Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 14969, 15021-45, 15069 ¶¶ 88-141, 189 (2004) 
(800 MHz Report and Order); Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Supplemental Order 
and Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 25120 (2004) (800 MHz Supplemental Order); Improving Public Safety 
Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 16015 (2005).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
2
at Sprint’s expense, including the expense of retuning or replacing the licensee’s radio units as required.5  
Sprint must provide the rebanding licensee with “comparable facilities” on the new channel(s), and must
provide for a seamless transition to enable licensee operations to continue without interruption during the 
retuning process.6 If the parties cannot reach agreement on a FRA, the case is referred to mediation, and 
issues that cannot be resolved in mediation are, in turn, referred to the Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau (PSHSB) for de novo review.7 The Parties have been unable to resolve their disputes 
relating to the above-described issues, requiring that we resolve those issues de novo. 
4. Liberty operates a ten-site 800 MHz radio system with a total of 50 licensed frequencies 
in Northern Florida.8 On September 26, 2006, Liberty, Sprint, Southern Communications Services, Inc., 
and Nextel Partners Operating Corporation9 entered into an FRA and Liberty commenced rebanding 
activities.10  Liberty transitioned to its post-reconfiguration frequencies in late December 2007.11 On 
January 23, 2008, Liberty submitted a Change Notice, alleging that interference was occurring at two of 
its sites – the Ridgeland Road (Central Tower) site in Tallahassee, Florida, and the East Point site (East 
Point), near Apalachicola, Florida.12 Liberty claims that replacement frequency 857.0875 MHz used at 
both the Central Tower and East Point sites (102.49 km apart) does not comply with the short-spacing 
criteria in Section 90.621(b)(4) of the Commission’s rules.13 The Change Notice proposes certain actions 
Sprint must take to address the alleged interference and to provide Liberty with what it regards are 
comparable facilities.14 The Change Notice also requests that Sprint pay all outstanding amounts due 
under the FRA, and provide advanced funding for the additional rebanding work necessary to resolve the 
alleged interference.15
  
5 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 14977 ¶ 11.
6 Id. at 14986 ¶ 26.
7 Id. at 15077 ¶ 201.
8 TA RR at 3.
9 Southern Communications Services, Inc, d/b/a SouthernLINC Wireless, and Nextel Partners Operating 
Corporation, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Sprint Nextel Corporation, offer ESMR service in some 
Southeastern markets.  See 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 14985, n.59.
10 On December 21, 2005, the TA assigned Liberty replacement frequencies for nine of its call signs, and on 
February 28, 2006 assigned replacement frequencies for the remaining two call signs.  Nextel Communications, Inc. 
Reply to Liberty Communications, Inc. Proposed Resolution Memorandum at 5, n.15 (Dec. 9, 2008) (Sprint Reply).
11 Liberty Communications, Inc. Proposed Resolution Memorandum TAM 50034 (Dec. 3, 2008) (Liberty PRM), at 
2.
12 Id. at Ex. 1  The Central Tower site is licensed under call sign KNIQ708.  The East Point site is licensed under 
call signs WPIT419 and WPLS383.  Liberty alleges it is experiencing interference on frequencies licensed under call 
sign WPLS383. TA RR at 3.
13 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b)(4).
14 Liberty PRM at 2.  The Change Notice requests that Sprint: 
(a) release to Liberty all remaining unpaid amounts under the existing FRA, as most recently 
amended, including any reallocation of existing budgeted amounts necessary to make these funds 
available; (b) commence negotiation with Liberty of an amendment to FRA Schedule C that will 
include a statement of additional work to be completed to provide Liberty with comparable 
facilities, which may include a third party interference study and evaluation of the suitability of the 
frequencies Liberty received in the original Schedule B to the FRA, and any substitute frequencies 
that may be required; and (c) provide additional up-front funding for this additional work.  Id. at 
Ex. 1.
15 Id. Ex. 1 at 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
3
5. On July 8, 2008, Liberty and Sprint executed a Statement of Work (SOW) for an 
independent third-party engineering consultant, Bird Technologies Group (Bird), to investigate the alleged 
interference and prepare a report recommending interference mitigation measures (the Bird Report).  
Sprint agreed to pay Bird’s fee for preparing the report.16 Sprint’s agreement to pay, however, was limited 
to Bird’s fee and did not include any ancillary activities by Liberty or its contractors.
6. In the FRA, as amended, the Parties agreed that the estimated total cost of Liberty’s 
reconfiguration was $650,135.35.17 Liberty, however, then sought an additional $410,307.31 in 
reconfiguration costs:18 (a) $42,930 for interference analysis and studies conducted by National Wireless 
Technologies, Inc. (National Wireless);  (b) $98,163.43 in internal costs (including $4,000 to manage the 
Bird investigation); (c) $132,948.88 for legal services rendered by Latham and Watkins, LLP (Latham); 
(d) $100,840 for legal services from Schwaninger and Associates (Schwaninger);19 (e) $34,225 for Bird 
Technologies Group; and (f) $1,200 for the services of Adgen Telecom Group (ATG) to prepare contour 
studies.20  Sprint has offered to pay $47,800 of additional reconfiguration costs, leaving $362,507.31 in 
dispute for legal, internal and consultant fees that are not covered by the FRA or the approved Change 
Notice, i.e., the Change Notice authorizing the Bird study.21  
7. On January 21, 2009, after mediation proved unsuccessful, the mediator referred the 
matter to PSHSB for de novo review and resolution, submitting the record and a Recommended 
Resolution.22  On February 4, 2009, both parties filed Statements of Position with the Bureau in 
accordance with our de novo review procedures.23
A. Parties’ Positions
8. Liberty Position.  Liberty argues that its replacement frequencies, which it began using in 
December 2007, do not provide it with comparable facilities.24 It asserts that during negotiations it 
requested sufficient spacing between its replacement frequencies to permit interference-free operation and 
“strenuously argued [against] the reuse of frequency channel, 857.0875 MHz at the Central Tower site 
[because it] would be short-spaced to the East Point location, in violation of the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) spacing rules, and would result in harmful interference between the two sites.”25  
Liberty claims the Bird Report supports the existence of interference because it concludes that 
“transmissions from the Central Tower location actually transmit into the East Point service area in 
sufficient amplitude to disrupt [co-channel East Point] communications.”26 In addition, Liberty requests 
that Sprint immediately pay the outstanding balance due under the FRA, as amended, and the additional 
  
16 The Parties agree that Bird’s fee for the interference investigation report is $34,225.
17 TA RR at 25.
18 Id.; Nextel Communications, Inc. Supplemental Proposed Resolution Memorandum, App. H (Jan. 8, 2009) (Sprint 
Supplemental PRM) at 49.
19 Liberty Supplement PRM at 13-14.
20 Id.
21  See Sprint Supplemental PRM, App. H.  at 49.
22 The Parties initially disputed when Liberty must return loaned equipment to Sprint.  Liberty PRM at 19; Sprint 
PRM at 21.  In reply briefs, the Parties agree that “Liberty is obligated to return the loaned equipment 30 days after 
the Closing Date” under the terms of the FRA.  Sprint Reply at 26.  We therefore do not address this issue.
23 Liberty Communications, Inc. Statement of Position (Liberty SOP) (Feb. 4, 2009); Nextel Communications, Inc. 
Statement of Position (Sprint SOP) (Feb. 4, 2009).
24 Liberty PRM at 2.
25 Id. at 4, 6.  
26 Id. at 5 citing Bird Report at 12-13.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
4
technical and legal fees Liberty incurred to investigate and document the alleged interference.27 Liberty 
also urges that negotiations should be initiated to amend Schedule C of the FRA to include a statement of 
additional work necessary to provide Liberty with comparable facilities, which work may include an 
additional independent interference study and an evaluation of the frequencies received in the original 
FRA Schedule B, and any substitute frequencies that may be needed.28 Liberty also asserts it is entitled to 
advance funding for the corrective work needed to provide it with comparable facilities.29
9. Sprint Position.  Sprint contends it has “fulfilled its obligation to provide Liberty with 
comparable facilities, and is not obligated to provide any more financial or logistical assistance to resolve 
alleged interference complaints.”30 Sprint asserts that “any problems Liberty is experiencing predates 
(sic) reconfiguration and cannot be attributed to reconfiguration.”31 Sprint also claims that it worked with 
Liberty, in good faith, to investigate the alleged interference and analyze the Bird Report.32 Sprint’s 
assessment of the Bird Report is that Bird neither identified a source of interference nor linked the alleged 
interference to rebanding of Liberty’s system.33 Sprint argues that the Bird Report details several 
operational and maintenance issues that could cause the interference Liberty claims to have experienced.34  
Sprint contends it is not responsible for either providing new replacement frequencies to Liberty or 
paying the cost of retuning Liberty’s equipment to new frequencies.35
10. Finally, Sprint argues that Liberty is pursuing an unnecessary change in frequencies and 
has incurred additional costs without the consent of Sprint or the TA, thereby misinterpreting the FRA and 
ignoring its obligations under the FRA and the Change Notice process.36 Sprint also maintains that 
“Liberty’s refusal to release its original frequencies is holding up the reconciliation and closing of the 
FRA, [and] is also blocking a Stage 2 public safety licensee from moving onto those frequencies.”37
11. TA Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator recommends we find that Sprint has met its 
burden of proof, i.e., that it has shown that it has provided Liberty with comparable facilities.  With 
respect to the assignment of frequency 857.0875 MHz at both the Central Tower and East Point sites, the 
mediator gives considerable weight to the fact that, pre-rebanding, Liberty was operating station 
WPLS383 in excess of its licensed parameters, and that Liberty improperly analyzed its expected 
interference protection based on its secondary site license parameters.38 Based on those findings, the 
mediator found it unnecessary to evaluate the Bird Report and concluded that the assignment of frequency 
857.0875 MHz to both the Central Tower and East Point sites did not violate the short spacing rules.39  
  
27 Id. at 9-10.
28 Id., Ex. 1 at 2.
29 Liberty PRM at 2.
30 Sprint PRM at 8.
31 Sprint Reply at 2.
32 Sprint PRM at 9.
33 Id. at 10.
34 Id.
35 Id. at 9.
36 Id. at 19; Sprint Reply at 27.
37 Sprint PRM at 17, n.46.
38 TA RR at 21.
39 Id. at 21.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
5
The mediator also recommended that Liberty be deemed responsible for any costs associated with 
relocating to a new frequency should the TA find an alternative frequency is available for Liberty.40
12. The mediator also recommends that the we find that Liberty was provided with 
comparable facilities when the TA assigned adjacent channels within Liberty’s system.41 The mediator 
concludes that Liberty is entitled only to the interference protection it had prior to rebanding, and notes 
that the Bird Report does not specifically identify any interference attributable to the adjacent channel 
assignments.42 The mediator also notes that the TA engineer concurs that the Bird Report did not identify 
actual interference.43 The mediator finds no record support for Liberty’s allegation that it objected to the 
adjacent channel assignments during the FRA negotiations.44 Finally, with respect to the disputed legal 
and technical expenses, the mediator determines that Liberty “has not satisfied the ‘minimum necessary 
cost’ standard for most of the requested costs,” and concludes that Sprint is not liable for most of them.45  
The mediator recommends that Sprint should pay: (a) $3,975 for the additional work performed by 
National Wireless, Inc.; (b) up to $5,600 of Schwaninger legal fees; and (c) up to $1,200 for AT G’s 
services, all subject to the submission of adequate documentation.46
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review 
13. In accordance with the 800 MHz Rebanding Orders, Liberty must be provided with 
replacement frequencies that are comparable to its pre-rebanding frequencies.47 As provided in Section 
21 of the FRA, Sprint must pay for whatever additional or replacement equipment may be necessary to 
render a replacement frequency comparable to a pre-rebanding frequency.  Additionally, Sprint must pay 
for the equipment or services necessary to ensure that the transition to replacement frequencies is 
seamless and does not result in interruption of service.48 Liberty is entitled to the same level of 
interference protection on its replacement frequencies as it had on its pre-rebanding frequencies.49
14. Liberty has the burden of proving that the reconfiguration costs it has incurred are 
reasonable, prudent, and “the minimum necessary to provide facilities comparable to those presently in 
use.”50 The Commission clarified the “minimum necessary cost” standard for rebanding in the Rebanding 
  
40 Id. at 22.
41 Id. at 23.
42 Id. at 22.
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Id. at 26-27.
46 Id. at 27.
47 The standards for comparable facilities are:  (1) equivalent channel capacity; (2) equivalent signaling capability, 
baud rate and access time; (3) coextensive geographic coverage; and (4) comparable operating costs.  800 MHz 
Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15077 ¶ 201.  See also Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to 
Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, Second Report and Order, 12 
FCC Rcd 19079, 19112-19113 ¶ 89-95 (1997).
48 800 MHz Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15077 ¶ 201.
49 The Commission’s rules do not, however, require Sprint to provide Liberty with an identical channel 
configuration.  See infra n.87.  Moreover, licensees are not entitled to more interference protection than the 
Commission’s rules afford, e.g., a licensee that had no co-channel stations on its original frequencies cannot be 
heard to complain that there is a co-channel station on its replacement frequencies so long as that co-channel station 
satisfies the Commission’s co-channel separation requirements. 
50 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15074 ¶ 198.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
6
Cost Clarification Order. 51  There, the Commission stated that “minimum necessary” cost does not mean 
the absolute lowest cost under all circumstances, but the “minimum cost necessary to accomplish 
rebanding in a reasonable, prudent, and timely manner.”52 This standard considers not only cost, but all of 
the objectives of the rebanding proceeding including timely and efficient completion of the rebanding 
process, minimizing the burden that rebanding imposes on public safety licensees, and facilitating a 
seamless transition that preserves public safety’s ability to operate during the transition.53
B. Issues in Dispute
1. Co-channel Issue
15. Section 90.62154 of the Commission’s rules specifies that SMR co-channel facilities must 
be located at least 113 kilometers (km) apart unless, for shorter distances, they satisfy specific effective 
radiated power (ERP) and antenna height limits listed in the “Short Spacing Separation Table” in Section 
90.621(b)(4)(ii)(C) of the Rules.55 The Parties acknowledge that Liberty’s Central Tower and East Point 
sites are only 102.49 km apart and, therefore, that the Short Spacing Separation Table applies.  They  
differ, however, on which party was responsible for identifying and rectifying the discrepancy between 
the actual antenna height of Liberty’s East Point antenna and the antenna height authorized on Liberty’s 
license.  The TA, in concluding that the same frequency could be used at both sites, relied on the 
authorized height as listed on the station license.56 Both the WPLS383 application and license list the 
height to the transmitting antenna tip as 18 meters above ground level (AGL),57 whereas Liberty has been 
operating with the tip of its transmitting antenna at 118 meters AGL.58 When the authorized 18 meter 
AGL figure is applied to the Short Spacing Separation Table, the 102.49 km spacing between the sites 
meets the Commission’s rules.59 Applying the 118 meter AGL value, however, results in the two sites 
being impermissibly close.  The Parties agree that Liberty erred in specifying the 18 meter AGL height in 
its application; they differ on whether Liberty or Sprint is responsible for the cost of rectifying the error.
  
51 Rebanding Cost Clarification Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 9821 ¶ 6. 
52 Id.
53 Id. ¶ 8.
54 47 C.F.R. § 90.621.
55 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b)(4)(ii)(C) (Table).
56 TA RR at 6, 8-9.
57 See Radio Station Authorization, Call Sign WPLS383, “Ant. Ht./Tp meters.”
58 Liberty Communications Inc. Response to Nextel’s Proposed Resolution Memorandum at 11, n.31 (Dec. 3, 2008) 
(Liberty Response). 
59 In order to apply the Short Spacing Separation Table it is necessary to know “the DHAAT [Directional Height 
Above Average Terrain] in each direction between every existing co-channel station with (sic) 113 km (70 mi) and  
the proposed station.”  47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b)(4)(ii)(A).  The DHAAT information must be calculated; it is not listed 
on the station license.  In calculating DHAAT, one must first determine the average terrain from 3 to 16 km on a 
radial between the two co-channel stations and on the radials +/- 15 degrees of the principal radial.  See 47 C.F.R. § 
90.621(b)(4)(i).  The DHAAT is then determined by adding the average terrain value, thus obtained, to the sum of 
the site elevation and the height of the antenna radiation center above ground level.  In the 800 MHz band, the height 
of the antenna tip is a satisfactory proxy for the antenna center of radiation above ground level because of the short 
wavelength of the signal.  At 857 MHz, for example, the signal wavelength is approximately 35 centimeters.  Thus, 
even for a “high gain” antenna made up of ten elements spaced one-half wavelength apart, the distance between the 
antenna tip and the antenna’s center of radiation would be only 1.75 meters.  The minor difference between the 
height to the antenna tip AGL and the height of the radiation center AGL is de minimis in the 800 MHz band in the 
context of the Short Spacing Separation Table which has relatively “coarse” listings of DHAAT.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
7
16. Decision.  We are not persuaded by Liberty’s arguments that the TA should not have used 
the 18 meter value listed in the station license because the 18 meter figure was attributable to an “error in 
the Commission’s data base.”60 We likewise are not persuaded by Liberty’s contention that, because the 
co-channel “short-spacing” did not exist prior to rebanding, the comparability standard demands that 
Sprint pay the cost of identifying and implementing a new interference-free channel.  Liberty was 
operating, pre-rebanding, with an antenna height significantly greater than authorized by its license.  
Nothing in the Commission’s 800 MHz orders entitles a licensee to “comparably unauthorized” facilities 
post-reconfiguration.
17. We agree with Sprint that a licensee bears responsibility for the accuracy of the data on 
its application and license, and that the 18 meter AGL figure – contained in the WPLS383 license 
application, and in the station license – appropriately was used when calculating the DHAAT and 
applying it to the Short Spacing Separation Table.61 Sprint points out that there is no overlap of the two 
facilities’ service and interference contours when the 18 meter AGL figure is used in the computation.62 It 
argues that the Bird Report does not definitively prove that the co-channel assignment is responsible for 
Liberty’s alleged interference problems, 63 and notes that interference, if it exists, could be attributable to 
maintenance deficiencies that Bird’s engineers identified at the East Point tower site.64
18. We agree with the TA mediator that the comparable facilities standard does not require 
Sprint to compensate Liberty for identifying and implementing a new replacement channel.  As Sprint 
notes, the erroneous 18 meter antenna tip AGL information existed on the WPLS383 authorization when 
it was granted initially. and the licensee did not correct the erroneous information when it filed for 
renewal of license in 2000.65 When Liberty filed its application with the Commission to implement the 
replacement frequencies in 2006, it again failed to correct the error. 
19. The Commission, at the inception of the 800 MHz proceeding, cautioned licensees to 
review their license information to ensure it was accurate and to make any corrections as soon as 
possible.66 Thus, Liberty was on notice that it had to verify the accuracy of the information on its licenses 
prior to rebanding, and, not having done so, is responsible for the error in the license and the resultant 
costs.67
20. We reject Liberty’s attempt to place responsibility on others to identify and correct the 
error on Liberty’s license.  It was Liberty that filed the WPLS383 and WPIT419 renewal and modification 
applications and had ample opportunity to “cross-check” the application information for the two stations.  
It was Liberty, as licensee, that had the duty to recognize and remedy the mistake.68 It failed to do so.  We 
  
60 Liberty Supplement PRM at 10.  Liberty suggests that the error somehow could have been made by Commission 
staff.  Id.  We take notice, however, that the Commission’s Universal Licensing System (ULS) requires the applicant 
for a license to enter height parameters directly into the data base, without staff assistance or intervention.  We 
therefore reject Liberty’s undocumented implication that the error in its license is attributable to Commission staff.
61 Sprint Supplement PRM at 5-7.
62 Sprint PRM at 13, n.32; Sprint Reply at 14, n.50.
63 Sprint PRM at 9-10.
64 Nextel Communications, Inc. Sur Reply to the Liberty Communications, Inc. Response to Nextel’s Proposed 
Resolution Memorandum at 4-5 (dated Dec. 15, 2008) (Sprint Sur-Reply); see also Bird Report at 14-16 (“[t]he East 
Point system should be cleaned up and optimized”).
65 Sprint Supplement PRM at 5-8.
66 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 14969 ¶ 204.
67 TA RR at 21.
68 See Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC 
Rcd 16015, 16057 (2005).  (“[L]icensees are strongly cautioned to carefully verify the accuracy of their current 
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
8
thus find that the TA was justified in taking Liberty’s WPLS383 license at face value and that Liberty, 
which failed to recognize its own mistake for over five years, cannot be heard to shift the cost 
responsibility for that mistake to either Sprint or the TA.  Finally, Liberty’s undocumented claim that it 
vigorously objected to the use of a co-channel frequency at the Central Tower and East Point sites is 
belied by the fact that Liberty entered into an FRA which specified that the same channel would be used 
at the two sites.
21. Liberty, although conceding that it is operating with greater than authorized facilities, i.e.,
with an antenna tip height of 118 meters instead of the authorized 18 meters, has done nothing to bring its 
operations into conformity with the Commission’s rules.  Liberty has essentially three options to conform 
its operations to the Rules:  (a) file an application for modification of license to correct the antenna tip 
height to 118 meters, accompanied by the showings required in Section 90.612(b)(5) of the Rules;69
(b) file an application for modification of license to operate with an antenna tip height of 18 meters;70 or 
(c) file an application for modification of license to correct the antenna tip height and change to a 
frequency that is not “short-spaced” to a co-channel facility.
22. Because Liberty, in its pleadings, has requested assignment of a new fully-spaced 
frequency at the Central Tower site,71 we presume it would prefer to exercise option “(c)” supra.  We are 
informed by the TA that it is possible, at this time, to identify a suitable fully-spaced frequency for the 
Central Tower site.  Therefore, Liberty may contact the TA to obtain a new frequency and, if such a fully-
spaced frequency remains available, to timely file an application for modification of license to implement 
option “(c).”  If a fully-spaced frequency is not available, however, Liberty must exercise either option 
“(a)” or “(b).” In any event, Liberty’s operation at variance with its license may not continue:  it must 
exercise one of the options supra within 15 days of the release date of this Memorandum Opinion and 
Order.72 Finally, whichever option Liberty elects, the associated cost – which stems from Liberty’s failure 
to verify its licensed parameters – is Liberty’s responsibility, not Sprint’s.
2. Adjacent Channel Issue.
23. Liberty complains of potential interference to repeater receivers at its Central Tower site 
stemming from the well-known “near-far” circumstance, i.e., a mobile unit near the repeater presents a 
strong “undesired” signal to the repeater antenna on “Frequency 1.” Simultaneously, a “desired” mobile 
unit far from the repeater, operating on adjacent “Frequency 2” presents a weak signal to the repeater 
antenna.73 The repeater receiver is insufficiently selective to reject the “undesired” Frequency 1 signal 
and, as a consequence, the strong undesired “near” signal on Frequency 1 interferes with the weaker 
     
authorizations and file any corrective applications prior to the time the band is “frozen” in their NPSPAC regions or 
after the freeze is lifted.”)  Cf.  Visiplex, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 1 
(2009); Corr Wireless Communications LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 
5419 (2009).  (Licensee responsible for operating within the terms of its authorization and the Commission’s rules.)
69 Modifying the Liberty license to correct the erroneous information would result in Liberty’s Central Tower site 
being impermissibly short spaced to its East Point site.  See 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b)(4)(ii)(C).  Because, however, 
Liberty is the licensee of both stations, it may invoke 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b)(5) which allows “short spacing” at 
distances less than shown in the Short-Spacing Separation Table provided that the licensee of the short-spaced 
station(s) consents.
70 Such an application for modification of license would require that Liberty adjust its HAAT to reflect the change in 
antenna height.
71 Liberty SOP at 6, 10.
72 If Liberty, despite due diligence, is unable to meet the 15 day deadline, it may file for Special Temporary 
Authority to operate at its present parameters for an appropriately limited term.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.931.
73 Bird Report at 5.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
9
desired “far” signal on Frequency 2.74 In general, the closer the near and far signals are in frequency, the 
greater the likelihood that the far signal will encounter interference.  In the instant case, Liberty complains 
that interference will occur if Frequency 1 and Frequency 2, in the above example, are separated by less 
than 100 kHz.75
24. At Liberty’s Central Tower site, several frequency pairs are less than 100 kHz apart.  
Specifically, in the reconfigured system, there are three pairs of channels that are separated by 25 kHz, 
two pairs of channels that are separated by 50 kHz and one pair of channels that is separated by 75 kHz.76  
Prior to reconfiguration, only one pair of Liberty’s channels was separated by less than 100 kHz.77  
Liberty claims, therefore, that the TA’s channel assignment places it in a less favorable interference 
environment than before reconfiguration.78 Liberty asserts that the post-reconfiguration channel spacing 
is incompatible with Liberty’s equipment configuration, i.e., the combiners, multi-couplers, repeaters, etc. 
used at the Central Tower site.  Liberty claims that this channel-spacing issue concerned it greatly and that 
it requested different replacement channels several times during FRA negotiations.79 Liberty also claims 
that the Bird Report is an independent study that provides measured evidence of actual interference.80
25. Decision. Liberty is claiming that it is entitled to protection against interference from 
rule-compliant signals originating on nearby frequencies, whereas the Commission’s rules afford no such 
protection against interference – SMR licensees are protected only against co-channel interference.  Thus, 
we agree with Sprint that the replacement frequencies assigned to Liberty at the Central site provide the 
licensee with comparable facilities because they “are in compliance with the Commission’s Rules and the 
same interference protection has been provided on all of the replacement frequencies as Liberty enjoyed 
prior to rebanding.”81 We also concur with Sprint that adjacent channel assignments are “not only 
prevalent in most 800 MHz band applications, they are not a recognized form of interference under the 
Commission’s rules.”82 In the 800 MHz Memorandum Opinion & Order, the Commission clearly noted 
that the TA was not required to consider adjacent channel stations when assigning a replacement 
frequency.83  
26. Sprint characterizes the Bird Report’s interference discussion as a simulation of potential 
interference and dismisses the 100 kHz minimum spacing “requirement” as an unsupported opinion.84  
Again, we agree – the Bird Report contains no instance of actual adjacent channel interference.  Finally, 
Sprint argues, even if Liberty’s channels were spaced as it requests, there is no Commission requirement 
  
74 The difference in signal levels can be substantial because the strength of a signal varies as the square of the 
distance between the transmitter and receiver.  Thus, a signal from a mobile unit operating a tenth of a mile from a 
repeater receiver can be 10,000 times as strong as the signal from a mobile unit operating ten miles from the repeater 
receiver.
75 Liberty PRM at 6-7, n.9.
76 Sprint PRM at App. B, Bird Report at 5, 7.
77 Liberty Response at 18.
78 Id. at 19.
79 Liberty PRM at 6.
80 Id. at 7.
81 Sprint PRM at 10.
82 Sprint Reply at 8.
83 See Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 16015, 16033 n.85 (2005) (“[a]s with the rules for 
applications for new licenses, the TA need not consider adjacent channel stations when specifying a replacement 
channel.”).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b).
84 Sprint Reply at 10-11.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
10
that the channels be protected, i.e., Liberty’s facility then would still be subject to adjacent channel 
interference from mobiles operating on rule-compliant neighboring facilities.85 Sprint’s observation is 
correct.  Every channel in Liberty’s system – pre-rebanding and post-rebanding – was or is susceptible to 
interference from nearby mobiles and portables in the “near-far” context.  Indeed, the record reflects that 
Liberty complained of adjacent channel interference from Sprint on Liberty’s pre-rebanding channels. 86  
Thus, even if Liberty is correct in its assertion that it operated with only occasional interference on its pre-
rebanding channels, that was a fortuity – not an entitlement.
27. In sum, the Commission’s rules did not provide Liberty with protection against adjacent 
channel interference before its system was reconfigured and the rules remain the same post-
reconfiguration – SMR licensees are not protected against adjacent channel interference from portable or 
mobile units regardless of the system with which those units are associated.  Requiring Sprint to pay for 
providing Liberty with a more interference resistant system post-reconfiguration would be an undeserved 
“upgrade,” i.e., it would not be consistent with the policy that licensees must reband at the minimum 
reasonable cost.  Moreover, we cannot fault the TA for assigning Liberty channels with less than Liberty’s 
preferred 100 kHz separation.  The TA provided channels that were available consistent with the 
Commission’s rules, i.e., the channels allocated to Liberty are “fully spaced” relative to other co-channel 
licensees.87 Nothing more was required.
28. We therefore agree with the TA mediator and Sprint that Liberty has been afforded 
comparable facilities:  It had a system susceptible to adjacent channel interference pre-rebanding and 
received a comparably interference-susceptible system post-reconfiguration. 
C. FRA Disputes
1. Release of Liberty’s Former Channels
29. Liberty Position. Relying on Section 2(a) of the FRA, Liberty argues that, although 
release of its pre-rebanding frequencies is a condition precedent to closing, it is not required to release its 
former channels “until on or before the Closing Date.”88 Liberty avers that the FRA “preserve[s] [its] 
right, if comparable facilities cannot be obtained, to continue to operate on the Incumbent Frequencies.”89  
It argues that Sprint improperly relies on two inconsistent sections of the FRA to conclude, erroneously, 
that Liberty agreed to release the frequencies in October 2007.90 Liberty acknowledges that Section 5 of 
the FRA requires it to clear the incumbent frequencies within an eight-month period following receipt of 
Sprint’s decommissioning notice.  It claims, however, that the Change Notice process and the interference 
  
85 Id. at 9.
86 Liberty Communications, Inc. Sur-Reply to Nextel’s Reply Proposed Resolution Memorandum at 12 (dated Dec. 
15, 2008) (Liberty Sur-Reply) (“[p]rior to rebanding, Incumbent, like many other incumbent 800 MHz users 
suffered periodic interference from Nextel’s ESMR operations”).
87 See State of Maryland, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 11939, 11943 (PSHSB 2006).  (“So long 
as a licensee’s replacement channel has no co-channel stations within seventy miles, and so long as adjacent channel 
operations comply with the applicable rules limiting out of band emissions, the replacement channel is 
presumptively comparable to the licensee's original channel even if the original channel did not have the same 
configuration of co-channel and adjacent channel systems.  The two channels are comparable because even if 
rebanding had not occurred, the licensee would have had to accept the presence of such operations under the rules 
had they been licensed on or adjacent to its original channel. [Citation omitted.]  Comparable facilities does not 
entitle a licensee to the exact same interference environment that it had prior to rebanding, provided that the 
licensee’s retuned system is protected by the same interference rules that applied prior to rebanding.”)
88 Liberty PRM at 10.  Section 9 of the FRA does not specify a date certain for the “Closing Date” but specifies nine 
events or conditions that must occur or be completed before the FRA is deemed “closed.”
89 Id. at 10-11.
90 Liberty Sur-Reply at 15-16.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
11
issues supersede that schedule, and effectively render the frequencies “unclear,”91 and that it has not yet 
notified Sprint that its pre-rebanding frequencies have been cleared of users.92  
30. Sprint Position. Sprint asserts that Liberty has not completely cleared or vacated its pre-
rebanding frequencies, which remain constructed and operational.93 It contends that Section 5 of the FRA 
requires Liberty to clear all users from the pre-rebanding frequencies eight months after Liberty receives 
Sprint’s decommissioning notice for all replacement frequencies.  Because it delivered that notice in 
February 2007, Sprint argues, Liberty was obligated to clear all users from the pre-rebanding frequencies 
in October 2007.94 Sprint concedes that the FRA does not specifically address when Liberty’s pre-
rebanding channels must be released to Sprint, but asserts that they must be cleared and released before 
the FRA can be deemed closed.95 It asserts that, because Liberty did not adhere to the terms of the FRA, 
the Change Notice request does not supersede the FRA and does not excuse Liberty from vacating the 
pre-rebanding channels eight months after receipt of Sprint’s decommissioning notice.96 Sprint also 
argues that Liberty’s Change Notice was not submitted until four months after the pre-rebanding 
frequencies should have been cleared.97 Sprint notes that Liberty’s refusal to release the pre-rebanding 
frequencies is preventing a nearby public safety licensee from rebanding its system.98
31. Mediator Recommendation. The mediator recommends the Commission find that Liberty 
should promptly release its pre-rebanding frequencies because it has received comparable facilities, and 
thus does not need to retain its pre-rebanding frequencies.  The mediator concurs with Liberty that the 
FRA does not explicitly address when the pre-rebanding frequencies are to be released to Sprint.99  
Although the FRA is unclear on this issue, the Mediator notes, the most reasonable interpretation of 
Section 5 of the FRA is that Liberty must clear and timely release the pre-rebanding channels to Sprint, 
because the pre-rebanding frequencies must be made available for use by another licensee as part of its 
rebanding.100
32. Decision.  Notwithstanding the fact that the FRA may lack a specific timetable for 
Liberty to release its pre-rebanding channels, it is clear from the Commission’s rebanding orders that 
licensees must vacate their pre-rebanding channels once they begin operating on their replacement 
channels.101 That requirement overrides any interpretation of the FRA that Sprint or Liberty may choose 
to offer.  Moreover, we have determined that Liberty received “comparable facilities” on its replacement 
frequencies.  Accordingly, we direct Liberty to discontinue operating on its pre-rebanding frequencies 
within fifteen days of the release date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.102
  
91 Liberty Response at 4-5.
92 Liberty PRM at 11.
93 Sprint Sur-Reply at 19.
94 Sprint PRM at 21; Sprint Reply at 25.
95 Sprint Sur-Reply at 19, n.67.
96 Id. at 21.  Section 8 of the Parties’ FRA reads in pertinent part that “changes must be performed expeditiously to 
keep the work on schedule….”
97 Id.
98 Id. at 21.
99 TA RR at 23.
100 Id.
101 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15011 ¶ 65.
102 Liberty filed for and received a modification of license to operate on post-rebanding frequencies.  The 
facilities specified in the modified license supersede those previously authorized, hence Liberty’s operation 
on its pre-rebanding frequencies is unauthorized.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
12
2. Sprint’s Obligation to Pay FRA Funds
33. Liberty Position. Liberty claims that Sprint owes an undisputed amount of approximately 
$95,000 under the FRA and is obligated to begin reconciling actual costs and promptly pay for expenses 
that Liberty has incurred.103 It asserts that the Commission “envisioned full payment of estimated costs 
upfront with a reconciliation at the end” and that “all rebanding payments should be reasonably 
contemporaneous with the time an expense is incurred.”104 Liberty notes that the FRA requires the Parties 
to begin reconciling Actual Costs 45 days after Sprint receives Liberty’s cost documentation, and, 
thereafter, that Sprint must pay the balance “within 30 days after the Reconciliation Date.”105 Liberty 
claims that it provided Sprint with documentation on September 8, 2008 and thus that payment is 
overdue.106 It contends that Sprint only recently claimed that it was not obligated to pay these amounts 
because Liberty’s cost documentation lacked adequate detail.  Liberty claims that it will supply Sprint 
with the missing detail, thus triggering the 45-day reconciliation period.107 It maintains there is nothing in 
the Commission’s rules or the FRA that supports Sprint’s argument that the reconciliation process will not 
begin until Liberty releases its pre-rebanding frequencies.108
34. Sprint Position. Sprint does not dispute that it owes Liberty approximately $95,000.  It 
argues, however, that the $ 95,000 is not payable until Liberty releases its pre-rebanding frequencies and 
the Parties mutually agree to a reconciliation date.109 It points out that the FRA provides that any 
outstanding balance of Actual Costs is not due until “thirty (30) days after the Reconciliation Date.”110 In 
contending that Liberty’s cost documentation is deficient and does not meet the TA’s standards,111 Sprint 
alleges that: (a) the invoices submitted for work performed on a “per unit” or “per hour” basis fail to 
specify the dates or number of hours worked, (b) the invoices are inconsistent with the category of items 
contained in Schedule C of the FRA,112 (c) the invoices lack the serial numbers of the portable and mobile 
units listed in Schedule C,113 (d) Liberty has not properly recorded the estimated travel mileage, and (e) 
Liberty has not provided receipts for shelter rent and electric utility expenses.114 Sprint claims that it had 
not earlier notified Liberty of the deficiencies because reconfiguration was incomplete and the 
reconciliation process had not yet begun.115
35. Mediator Recommendation. The mediator recommends the Commission find that Liberty 
is not entitled to begin the reconciliation process until it either (a) advises Sprint that reconfiguration is 
  
103 Liberty PRM at 8, Ex. 7.  Exhibit No. 7 is Invoice No. 10111511 dated September 4, 2008 from Liberty to Sprint 
Nextel, which reads that the balance due is $92,721.95. 
104 Liberty PRM at 9; Liberty Response at 2.
105 Liberty PRM at 8.  The FRA defines the “Reconciliation Date” as “the effective date upon which the Parties 
mutually agree on reconciliation.”  Sprint PRM, App. A, FRA § 3(b)(i).
106 Liberty Response at 2.
107 Liberty Sur-Reply at 15.
108 Liberty Response at 3.
109 Sprint PRM at 16-17.  Sprint states it may pay Liberty up to $94,790.46, which includes a contingent amount that 
will likely vary before the parties close the FRA.  Id.
110 Sprint PRM at 17.
111 Sprint Reply at 22.
112 Id. at 21-23.
113 Id.
114 Id.
115 Sprint Reply at 23.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
13
complete and agrees to release its pre-rebanding frequencies; or (b) the Commission determines that 
Liberty has received comparable facilities and directs Liberty to release its pre-rebanding frequencies.116  
The mediator agrees with Sprint that Liberty’s cost documentation is incomplete, but notes Liberty has 
agreed to supply the missing information.117 Finally, the mediator determines that Sprint is not obliged to 
begin cost reconciliation because “Section 3(a) of the FRA contemplates a final reconciliation after 
reconfiguration is complete” and Liberty has stated that additional reconfiguration work is required.118  
36. Decision.  We agree with the mediator’s interpretation of the FRA and find the language 
in Section 3(a) of the FRA is unambiguous:  it explicitly provides that Sprint need not pay the remaining 
funds until 30 days after the Parties mutually set a reconciliation date.  The record shows, and Liberty 
concedes, that reconfiguration is incomplete.  Neither party has proposed a reconciliation date.  We 
therefore conclude that the remaining funds due under the FRA are not payable by Sprint until 
reconfiguration is complete and Liberty has vacated its pre-rebanding channels and provided Sprint with 
complete and adequate cost documentation.
3. Additional Legal and Technical Consultant Costs
37. The Parties dispute whether Liberty should be reimbursed for additional costs for services 
that were not included in the FRA or the approved Change Notice.  The Change Notice process, however, 
contemplates that parties will agree – in advance of work being performed – on the cost of addressing 
emergencies or unanticipated changes in expense, scope or schedule during implementation.119 The 
resulting agreement of the parties must be approved by the TA.120 Section 8 of the Parties’ FRA, the TA 
Handbook, the Commission’s 800 MHz Report and Order and the Change Order Public Notice explicitly 
instruct licensees to submit Change Notice requests concurrently to Sprint and the TA for review and 
written approval before the work is begun.121
38. Liberty Position.  In addition to the agreed-upon costs specified in the FRA and the 
approved Change Notice, Liberty seeks:  (a) $132,948.88 for legal services rendered by Latham, (b) 
$100,840 for Schwaninger’s legal fees,122 (c) $42,930 for additional National Wireless consultant fees;123
(d) $1,200 for AT G’s engineering services,124 and (e) $4,000 for Liberty’s management of the Bird 
investigation. 125
  
116 TA RR at 18, 24.
117 Id. at 24.
118 Id.
119 See FCC Announces Supplemental Procedures and Provides Guidance for Completion of 800 MHz Rebanding, 
WT Docket No. 02-55, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 17227 (2007) (Change Order Public Notice).
120 Id.
121 Section 8(a) of the Parties’ FRA reads in pertinent part that “[i]f any Party believes that any change(s) to the 
work contemplated by this Agreement is required, … such Party shall promptly notify the other Parties in 
writing….”  Sprint PRM at App. A.  Section 8(b) further reads, in pertinent part, that “the receiving Party shall 
immediately perform its own analysis of the need for change in the work….and submit to the Transition 
Administrator a copy of the proposed amendment [and] a written request for its approval.” Id.  
122 Id.
123 Id.
124 Id.
125 Liberty anticipates the costs will continue to rise until the interference issue is resolved.  Liberty Supplement to 
PRM at 13.  Liberty states the increased costs result from further negotiation and mediation activities, and 
preparation of four rounds of PRMs.  Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
14
39. In defense of its incurring costs not provided for in the FRA or approved Change Notice, 
Liberty argues that the Commission’s orders require Sprint to pay all rebanding costs necessary to provide 
Liberty with comparable facilities.126 It contends that “whether costs are judged reasonable must be 
viewed in light of the overall goals of rebanding.”127 It argues that the costs not included in the FRA or 
the approved Change Notice were the minimum necessary to investigate and identify the interference 
source, and to prepare and file the January 23, 2008 Change Notice, given Sprint’s unwillingness to assist 
in resolving interference to Liberty’s operations.128 It insists the services of National Wireless, Latham, 
and Schwaninger were complementary rather than duplicative because each firm had a distinct role.129  
For example, Liberty claims that National Wireless investigated the interference and consulted on the 
Change Notice,130 and that Latham was retained to draft the Change Notice and worked with National 
Wireless because the two firms had worked together on other rebanding projects.131 Schwaninger was 
retained to address general reconfiguration matters and to serve as liaison with Sprint and the mediator.132  
Liberty submits that it was unnecessary to obtain Sprint’s approval before incurring the additional 
expenses because Sprint’s prior approval is not a condition of “reasonableness” or a prerequisite to 
Sprint’s overall obligation to bear all rebanding costs.133 Although, as noted supra, Liberty claims that 
Sprint was unwilling to assist in interference resolution, it inconsistently also maintains that Sprint 
actively participated in efforts to resolve the interference, and, therefore, should have anticipated the 
additional costs incurred by Liberty.134
40. Sprint Position.  Sprint counteroffers $47,800 for some of the additional services 
performed for Liberty, i.e., (a) $34,225 for the Bird report, (b) $4,000 for Liberty’s internal costs to assist 
Bird with the study; (c) $5,600 for Schwaninger to negotiate the Bird SOW;135 and (d) $3,975 for 
National Wireless’ technical services.136 Sprint contends that the requested additional $100,840 for 
Schwaninger’s legal fees and the additional $42,930 for National Wireless’ technical costs “were not 
accounted for in the FRA, detailed in the Change Notice or discussed with [Sprint] until after they were 
incurred.”137 Sprint also argues that it was unnecessary to retain two law firms to provide the additional 
legal services.  It contends that Latham’s $132,948.88 fee should be disallowed because Latham “is 
neither an approved vendor in Schedule C of the FRA nor identified in the Change Notice.”138 Sprint 
states it was unaware of Latham’s involvement in the rebanding effort until it received an invoice in July 
2008.139
  
126 Liberty PRM at 11-12, 20, Ex. 8; Liberty Response at 6.
127 Liberty Response at 7.
128 Liberty PRM at 12.
129 Id. at 12-13.
130 Id. at 13.
131 Id. 
132 Id. at 14.
133 Liberty Response at 7-8.
134 Liberty Sur-Reply at 18.
135 Sprint agrees to pay 16 hours at $350 per hour for Schwaninger’ legal fees.  Sprint Supplement PRM at App. H.
136 Sprint PRM at 17.  Sprint agrees to pay 15 hours at $265 per hour for National Wireless’ technical services.  
Sprint Supplement PRM at App. H.
137 Sprint SOP at 4; Sprint Reply at 18.
138 Sprint Reply at 19.
139 Id. at 20.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
15
41. Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator calculates the total cost in dispute as 
$277,918.88, which is approximately 40% of the $650,135.35 that Liberty estimated as the total cost of 
rebanding its system.140 Employing a two-step analysis, the mediator notes that costs determined to be “at 
risk,” i.e., those incurred without Sprint or TA approval, may be reimbursable if they satisfy the Minimum 
Cost standard.  The mediator finds that Liberty did not comply with Section 8 of the FRA and therefore, 
assumed the risk that it would not be reimbursed for its additional costs.141 The mediator also finds that 
Liberty failed to submit documentation demonstrating that the additional legal and technical costs were 
the “minimum necessary” to accomplish rebanding in a reasonable and prudent manner.142 The mediator 
concludes that Liberty’s alleged fear that the Change Notice would not be approved because Liberty 
lacked sufficient supporting information was not a legitimate excuse for Liberty’s failure to notify Sprint 
before incurring the additional costs as required by Section 8 of the FRA, and to seek TA review and 
approval.143 The mediator concludes that Liberty “presented Sprint with a fait accompli when it 
employed a ‘self-help’ approach to investigate the interference” contrary to the TA’s policies.144  
Nonetheless, the mediator recommends that Sprint pay the following costs:  (a) up to $5,600 for 
Schwaninger’s legal fees; (b) $3,975 for National Wireless’ consulting services; and (c) up to $1,200 for 
ATG’s technical services, all conditioned on the submission of additional documentation.145
42. Decision.  On the record before us, and as discussed, infra, we disallow most of Liberty’s 
claimed additional costs for services that were not provided for in the FRA or the approved Change 
Notice.
43. Schwaninger Additional Legal Fees. Liberty failed to comply with Section 8 of the FRA, 
and did not seek TA approval of the additional costs it incurred, thus placing all of its additional, 
unapproved, costs at risk.  We concur with the mediator, however, that costs determined to be “at risk” 
may be reimbursable if the Minimum Cost standard is met.146 We deny, in part, Liberty’s request that 
Sprint pay for Schwaninger’s additional legal fees because the record does not reflect that Liberty met its 
burden of showing that the additional costs were the minimum necessary.
44. Latham Legal Fees. Liberty acknowledges it unilaterally deviated from the Change 
Notice process when, based on National Wireless’ recommendation, it hired Latham in November 2007 to 
perform work not included in the FRA or delineated in the January 2008 Change Notice.147 We reject, as 
does the mediator, Liberty’s speculative argument that it deviated from Section 8 of the FRA out of “fear” 
that Sprint would reject a Change Notice “out of hand” without sufficient support.148 By its own 
admission, Liberty “took responsibility for investigating the interference”149 and incurred unapproved 
expenses in violation of its contractual obligations under the FRA.  In so doing, it deprived Sprint of the 
opportunity to review what Liberty proposed, to propose alternatives, and to negotiate the associated 
costs.
  
140 TA RR at 25, citing Sprint PRM, App. A at 77.
141 Id. at 25.
142 Id. at 26.
143 Id. at 25.
144 Id.
145 Id. at 27.
146 Id. at 25.
147 Liberty Sur-Reply at 17.  We note that Latham is not an approved vendor in the Parties’ FRA, as amended.
148 Liberty PRM at 19-20; Liberty Sur-Reply at 17.
149 Liberty Sur-Reply at 17.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
16
45. We find that the costs that Liberty incurred for the additional services provided by 
Latham were not the “minimum necessary” to achieve comparable facilities.150 We can appreciate 
Liberty’s desire to take advantage of a working relationship between Latham and National Wireless.  
Liberty, however, does not explain why Schwaninger, its telecommunications counsel – well versed in 
rebanding matters and familiar with the case – was not competent to provide the services assigned to 
Latham, i.e., evaluation of National Wireless’ findings.  Moreover, contrary to Liberty’s assertion, the 
services provided by Latham duplicated those provided by Schwaninger.  Thus, for example, the February 
2008 invoices from both firms show that each participated in selecting an independent engineering firm to 
investigate interference and, thereafter, negotiated the Statement of Work (SOW).151 Liberty has not 
established that the retention of two law firms to work on the same matter reflected the “minimum 
necessary” cost of rebanding its system, and we disallow all of Latham’s fees. 
46. We find that Sprint should pay $16,920 for expenses Liberty incurred for Schwaninger to 
interview engineering firms to investigate the interference claims and to participate in the drafting and 
negotiation of the SOW.152 Sprint offers $5,600 for Schwaninger’s fees to negotiate the SOW, but fails to 
explain how it determined that $5,600 is a reasonable fee for advising Liberty over the five month period 
during which the parties drafted, reviewed and executed the SOW.153 Because it was Sprint that proposed 
that Liberty engage an independent engineering consultant to investigate the interference claims, and 
because Sprint participated in drafting the related SOW over a five month period, we find it reasonable 
for Sprint to pay the associated legal fees.154
47. National Wireless Technical Consultant Costs.  Sprint states it does not dispute the 
$23,055 for National Wireless’ consulting services approved in the amended FRA Schedule C, but 
disputes the additional costs requested thereafter, which total $42,930.155 As a counteroffer, Sprint offers 
to pay a total of $3,975 (a rate of 15 hours at $265 per hour) for National Wireless’ expenses to identify 
and interview third-party engineering services candidates.
48. The January 23, 2008 Change Notice does not contemplate the additional work that 
Liberty authorized National Wireless to perform in connection with the interference investigation.156 In 
authorizing the additional work, without an approved Change Notice, Liberty argues it was required “to 
turn to its own resources” because Sprint was uncooperative.157 We see no evidence of this in the record.
  
150 TA RR at 26. (Latham is not an approved vendor in the FRA Schedule C, and its services are not identified in the 
Change Notice.)
151 Liberty SOP at Attachment.
152 We note that Sprint has incorrectly calculated National Wireless’ additional expense as $4,440.  See Sprint Reply 
at 19, n.65, whereas the correct amount, as reflected in Appendix H in Sprint’s Supplemental PRM is $3,975.  See
Sprint Supplement PRM, at App. H.  Based on our review of Schwaninger’s invoices submitted in the record, we 
determine that Sprint should pay for 42.3 hours at $400 per hour, which equals $16,920.00.  See Liberty PRM at Ex. 
11.  (Liberty requests $42,005 for Schwaninger’ legal fees incurred June 2007 through June 2008 and $58,835.00 for 
the period July through December 2008, for a total of $100,840.  See Liberty PRM at Ex. 11; Liberty Supplement 
PRM at 13-14.)
153 Sprint PRM at 17; Sprint Reply at 17.  Sprint agrees to pay Schwaninger’s legal fee of 16 hours at $350 per hour 
to negotiate the Bird SOW, and related interaction with its client and associated parties.  See Sprint Sur-Reply at 
App. D.
154 Sprint PRM at 3.
155 Liberty PRM at Ex. 8; Sprint Sur-Reply at 14.  We note that Liberty does not support its request for National 
Wireless’ “future work” estimated to cost $5,300.  Liberty PRM at Ex. 8; Liberty Supplement PRM at 14.
156 Liberty PRM, Ex. 1.
157 Id. at 19.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
17
49. Because of the lack of detail in National Wireless’ invoices, we are unable to determine 
whether the majority of the services performed satisfy the minimum cost standard.  We do, however, 
approve as reasonably related to the initiation of the interference study approved by Sprint, the sum of 
$3,975 which National Wireless expended to obtain third-party engineering services.
50. ATG Technical Consultant Costs. AT G provided a declaration from ATG engineer, 
Mehran Nazari, to support its filings in this proceeding.158 Therefore, the mediator recommends that 
Sprint pay AT G’s costs not to exceed $1,200, conditioned upon Liberty’s submission of additional 
documentation that AT G’s work satisfies the minimum cost standard.
51. We agree with the mediator that the ATG costs appear to be necessary to support 
Liberty’s filings.  We conclude that given the relatively small amount at issue, and because ATG’s work, 
on its face, reflects at least $1,200 of effort, that Sprint should pay ATG’s fee.
IV. CONCLUSION
52. Our decision herein rests on the following three principles:  (a) The Commission’s
comparable facilities standard contemplates that relocating licensees, post-rebanding, will receive systems 
protected against interference to the extent that the Commission’s rules allow – licensees are not protected 
against adjacent channel interference; (b) long-standing Commission policy establishes that licensees are 
responsible for the accuracy of information provided to the Commission and reflected on their 
instruments of authorization; and (c) the Commission’s Change Order Public Notice clearly requires that 
extra-FRA expenses may be incurred only when authorized.
53. Here, Liberty’s concern over potential adjacent channel interference to its system in the 
“near-far” context159 may well be valid, but the potential for adjacent channel interference, post-rebanding 
is no greater than that which existed pre-rebanding.  In the pre-rebanding circumstance, Liberty was 
vulnerable to interference from the mobiles of any other licensee operating on an adjacent channel, and 
could not be heard to complain because the Commission’s rules do not protect licensees against adjacent 
channel interference.  So too with Liberty’s post-rebanding frequencies. 
54. The Commission must rely on its licensees for the accuracy of the information supplied 
in license applications and reflected in station licenses.  Liberty was on notice of the need to validate what 
Liberty itself contends was an obvious error on its license for station WPLS383.160 Its negligent failure to 
do so resulted in it operating at variance from its licensed parameters for a period of years and, ultimately, 
to the potential for co-channel interference between Stations WPLS383 and KNIQ708.  The responsibility 
for correcting that error and accepting its consequences rests with Liberty alone.
55. The Commission’s guidance on Change Notices is clear – a licensee must present a 
proposed change to Sprint and the TA before incurring expenses in excess of those allowed in an FRA.  
As the mediator explains, licensees may not incur expenses and then present an invoice to Sprint as a fait 
accompli.  Liberty’s failure to adhere to the Change Order Public Notice is particularly egregious, e.g.,
Sprint was unaware that the Latham firm had been retained until it was presented with Liberty’s invoice 
for $ 132,948.88.  When the issue of interference first arose, the Change Notice policy was followed and 
Sprint agreed to pay for the Bird Study.  Accordingly, we have approved some of the expenses reasonably 
related to that study.  Other subsequent expenses, however, do not conform to the advance approval policy 
set out in the Change Order Public Notice and do not reflect costs that are “the minimum necessary to 
provide facilities comparable to those presently in use.”  Those expenses have been disallowed.
  
158 TA RR at 27.
159 Supra ¶ 23.
160 Supra n.68.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1318
18
56. In sum, we allow Liberty to recover the aggregate amount of $ 60,320 from Sprint, 
representing Liberty’s minimum necessary rebanding expenses.  We also direct Liberty to discontinue 
operating on its pre-rebanding channels within 15 days of the release date of this Memorandum Opinion 
and Order. We direct the TA to cooperate with Liberty in the identification of a new frequency for either 
station WPLS383 or KNIQ708, should Liberty make such a request, and should a substitute channel be 
available, with the understanding that Liberty is responsible for any expense associated with relocating to 
the new channel.  
ORDERING CLAUSES
57. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority of Sections 0.191 and 0.392 of the Commission’s 
rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.191, 0.392; Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
§ 154(i), and Section 90.677, of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 90.677, IT IS ORDERED that the 
issues submitted by the Transition Administrator are resolved as discussed above. 
58. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, effective fifteen (15) days from the release date 
hereof, Liberty Communications, Inc. SHALL DISCONTINUE operations on its pre-rebanding 
frequencies.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Michael J. Wilhelm, Deputy Chief
Policy Division
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau