Federal Communications Commission DA 09-773  
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of Applications of
NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 
NETWORK, INC. 
Informal Objection Filed by Mobile Relay 
Associates
Informal Objection field by Mobile Relay 
Associates; Joint Request for Dismissal or Denial 
Filed by Comm Enterprises, LLC, James A. Kay, 
MS Airwaves, Inc., and Marc D. Sobel
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 
)
)
)
)
)
File No. 0002919006
File No. 0002919011
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  April 3, 2009 Released:  April 6, 2009
By the Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
1. Introduction.  In this Order on Reconsideration, we address a petition (Petition)1 filed on 
March 27, 2008 by National Science and Technology Network, Inc. (NSTN) for reconsideration of a 
March 14, 2008 Order.2 The Order granted the informal objections of Mobile Relay Associates (MRA) 
and Comm Enterprises, LLC, James A. Kay, MS Airwaves, Inc., and Marc D. Sobel (Joint Petitioners) to 
NSTN’s above-captioned February 20, 2007 applications to modify its license for Industrial/Business 
Pool Station WPMM274 to, inter alia, add channels at Glendale, California (File No. 0002919006) and 
for a new license to operate on different frequencies at the Glendale location (File No. 0002919011).3 For 
the reasons stated below, we deny the Petition.
2. Background.  NSTN sought authority to operate with a 12.5 kHz bandwidth on 12.5 kHz 
“offset” channels in the 470-512 MHz band.  MRA and Joint Petitioners, which operate on 25 kHz 
channels on center frequencies 12.5 kHz removed from NSTN’s requested frequencies, objected to 
NSTN’s proposed operations on the grounds that NSTN did not satisfy the interference protection criteria 
of TIA/EIA/TSB-88 (TSB-88)4 and would cause them impermissible interference.  The Order concluded 
that a TSB-88 analysis was required because there was spectral overlap between MRA’s and Joint 
Petitioners’ licensed operations and NSTN’s proposed operations, and that NSTN’s proposed operations 
  
1 Petition for Reconsideration (filed March 27, 2008) (Petition).  Mobile Relay Associates filed an opposition on 
April 4, 2008.  Comm Enterprises, LLC, James A. Kay, MS Airwaves, Inc., and Marc D. Sobel filed an opposition 
on April 9, 2008.  NSTN did not file a reply.
2 National Science and Technology Network, Inc., Order, 23 FCC Rcd 4096 (WTB MD 2008) (Order).
3 Id. at 4097 ¶ 8.  
4 See Filing Freeze to Be Lifted for Applications under Part 90 for 12.5 kHz Offset Channels in the 421-430 and 
470-512 MHz Bands, Public Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 5942, 5942 (WTB 1997) (citing Letter from Larry A. Miller, 
President, Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC), to Daniel B. Phythyon, Esq., Acting Chief, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (Sept. 10, 1997) (LMCC Consensus)).  The LMCC Consensus provides that an 
application shall not be certified if an incumbent or the applicant has unacceptable interference of more than five 
percent reduction of the calculated service area reliability.  See LMCC Consensus, Attachment at 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-773 
2
did not satisfy the TSB-88 criteria.5  
3. The Order noted6 that NSTN’s applications relied on a then-recent Mobility Division 
decision7 for the proposition that a TSB-88 study was not required for the proposed operations because 
there was no spectral overlap between the proposed facilities and the incumbent facilities, but that the 
Mobility Division had subsequently reversed that decision and explained that the earlier finding of no 
spectral overlap was based on a mathematical error.8 We note that the Mobility Division’s recent Order 
on Further Reconsideration upheld the reversal of the original decision, and rejected a number of other 
arguments proffered by NSTN in defense of its applications to operate with a 12.5 kHz bandwidth on 12.5 
kHz “offset” channels in the 470-512 MHz band on center frequencies 12.5 kHz removed from existing 
stations’ center frequencies.9
4. Discussion.  We conclude that the Order correctly found that there is spectral overlap 
from NSTN’s proposed operations on 12.5 kHz offset channels (with an occupied bandwidths of 11.25 
kHz) on center frequencies 12.5 kHz removed from MRA’s and Joint Petitioners’ 25 kHz channels (with an 
occupied bandwidth of 20 kHz).10  NSTN asserts that there is no spectral overlap because 25 kHz channels 
do not actually occupy 20 kHz.11 The Order on Further Reconsideration rejected this argument, and we 
will not discuss it further.12 NSTN also argues that its proposed operations should not be deemed to 
overlap MRA’s and Joint Petitioners’ spectrum because Section 90.187(b)(2) of the Commission’s 
Rules13 affords protection only to stations with center frequencies 7.5 kHz or less removed from a 
proposed 12.5 kHz station.14  The Order on Further Reconsideration rejected this argument, and we will 
not discuss it further.15 NSTN claims that TSB-88 applies only to “radio systems where all parts of the 
affected systems transmit and receive on the same frequency,” not to duplex systems where transmit and 
receive frequencies are separated.16  The Order on Further Reconsideration rejected this argument, and 
we will not discuss it further.17 NSTN also argues that the Order is not in the public interest and conflicts 
with the Commission’s rules18 requiring 25 kHz private land mobile radio licensees to transition to more 
  
5 See Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 4097 ¶¶ 4-5.  
6 See id. at 4097 ¶ 4.
7 National Science and Technology Network, Inc., Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1953, 1954 n.10 (WTB MD 2007).
8 See National Science and Technology Network, Inc., Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 18644, 18646 ¶ 6 
(WTB MD 2007).
9 See National Science and Technology Network, Inc., Order on Further Reconsideration, DA 09-663 (WTB MD 
rel. Mar. 24, 2009) (Order on Further Reconsideration).
10 See id. at ¶ 5.
11 See Petition at 3.
12 See Order on Further Reconsideration at ¶ 5.
13 47 C.F.R. § 90.187(b)(2).
14 See Petition at 4.
15 See Order on Further Reconsideration at ¶ 6.
16 See Petition at 2.
17 See Order on Further Reconsideration at ¶ 7.
18 See 47 C.F.R. § 90.209(b)(5) n.3; Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934 as 
Amended; Promotion of Spectrum Efficient Technologies on Certain Part 90 Frequencies, Second Report and Order 
and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, WT Docket No. 99-87, RM-9332, 18 FCC Rcd 
3034, 3038 ¶ 12 (2003).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-773 
3
efficient equipment by 2013.19  The Order on Further Reconsideration rejected this argument, and we 
will not discuss it further.20  
5. Finally, we are unpersuaded by NSTN’s claim that MRA and Joint Petitioners have no 
legitimate grievance because they have not experienced any harmful interference, and that they are 
abusing the Commission’s adjudication process for anticompetitive reasons.21 As stated in the Order, our 
engineering staff’s independent studies confirmed the results of MRA’s and Joint Petitioners’ interference 
studies that NSTN’s proposed operations would not afford them the required degree of interference 
protection.22 That NSTN competes with these parties does not render their objections to NSTN’s 
defective applications illegitimate.23
6. In summary, the Order correctly found that NSTN was required to satisfy the interference 
protection criteria of TSB-88 because there is spectral overlap between its proposed operations and 
MRA’s and Joint Petitioners’ licensed operations.  It correctly dismissed NSTN’s application File No. 
0002919011 in full, and application File No. 0002919006 in part, insofar as it sought to add frequency 
pairs 471/474.500 MHz, 472/475.000 MHz, and 472/475.375 MHz to locations 5, 14, and 15.  
Consequently, we deny the Petition.
7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 
C.F.R. § 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration submitted by National Science and Technology 
Network, Inc. on March 27, 2008 IS DENIED.
8. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Roger S. Noel 
Chief, Mobility Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
  
19 See Petition at 1-2.
20 See Order on Further Reconsideration at ¶ 8.
21 See Petition at 4.
22 See Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 4097 ¶ 2.
23 Moreover, NSTN makes no effort to explain why we should disregard its competitors’ objections to NSTN 
applications, but accept NSTN’s objections to MRA applications.  See, e.g., Mobile Relay Associates, Order, DA 
09-616 (WTB MD rel. Mar. 19, 2009); Mobile Relay Associates, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 4099 (WTB MD 2008); 
Mobile Relay Associates, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3202 (2008).  We remind counsel that an 
attorney may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action pursuant Section 1.24 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 
C.F.R. § 1.24, for a willful violation of Section 1.52 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.52, which provides 
that an attorney’s signature on a pleading constitutes a certificate by him that there is good ground to support it, to 
the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.  See Mobile Relay Associates, Order on Reconsideration and 
Order Proposing Modification, DA 09-619, n.15 (WTB MD rel. Mar. 19, 2009).