[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 246 (Friday, December 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31559]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 23, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2, 15, and 24

[GEN Docket No. 90-314; FCC 94-304]

 

Establishment of New Personal Communications Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: By this action, the Commission addresses eight petitions for 
reconsideration of the Third Report and Order (Third R&O) in this 
proceeding, 59 FR 9419 (February 28, 1994). The Commission affirms the 
denials of broadband personal communications services (PCS) pioneer's 
preferences to petitioners, and because of the recent passage of 
legislation regarding the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 
that mooted any further Commission action on the three broadband PCS 
pioneer's preference grants, dismisses those portions of the petitions 
that pertain to the grants.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 23, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Remly, Office of Engineering and 
Technology, at (202) 653-8106.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) in GEN Docket 90-314, adopted 
December 2, 1994 and released December 2, 1994. The full text of this 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 230), 1919 M Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20037.

Summary of MO&O

    1. The Commission's pioneer's preference rules provide a means of 
extending preferential treatment in its licensing process to parties 
that demonstrate their responsibility for developing new communications 
services and technologies. These rules are intended to foster 
development of new services and improve existing services by reducing 
the delays and risks innovators otherwise would face with the 
Commission's licensing process.
    2. To be granted a pioneer's preference, therefore, an applicant 
must demonstrate that it has developed a new service or technology; 
that is, that it has developed the capabilities or possibilities of the 
service or technology or has brought the service or technology to a 
more advanced or effective state. The applicant also must demonstrate 
the technical feasibility of the new service or technology, either by 
submitting a technical feasibility showing or having submitted at least 
preliminary results of an experiment. Finally, a preference will be 
granted only if the rules adopted are a reasonable outgrowth of the 
proposal and lend themselves to grant of a preference.
    3. In this proceeding, the Commission received pioneer's preference 
requests related to broadband PCS from 89 applicants, of which 50 were 
accepted for consideration. In October 1992, it tentatively found that 
American Personal Communications (APC), Cox Enterprises, Inc. (Cox), 
and Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (Omnipoint) merited preferences and 
that the remaining 47 requests relating to broadband PCS tentatively 
did not merit preferences. In December 1993, in the Third R&O, the 
Commission concluded that APC, Cox, and Omnipoint (Grantees) met the 
pioneer's preference standard and therefore merited award of 
preferences, and that the remaining requests did not meet this standard 
and therefore did not merit award of preferences. APC was granted a 
preference for having developed and demonstrated technologies that 
facilitate spectrum sharing by mobile PCS and fixed microwave systems 
at 2 GHz; Cox was granted a preference for having developed and 
demonstrated the feasibility of innovatively using cable television 
facilities as part of the PCS infrastructure; and Ominipoint was 
granted a preference for having designed and manufactured a 2 GHz 
spread spectrum handset and associated base station equipment.
    4. In its petition for reconsideration, Advanced Cordless 
Technologies, Inc. (ACT) requested that the Commission reconsider the 
Third R&O ``insofar as the Commission there * * * failed to award a 
pioneer's preference to ACT.'' However, the Commission found that its 
decision to deny ACT's PCS pioneer's preference request was made in the 
First Report & Order in GEN Docket No. 90-314 and ET Docket No. 92-100, 
58 FR 42681 (August 11, 1993), not in the Third R&O. Accordingly, it 
dismissed ACT's petition.
    5. In their joint petition for reconsideration, Advanced MobileComm 
Technologies, Inc. and Digital Spread Spectrum Technologies, Inc. (AMT/
DSST) claimed that the Commission erred in its conclusions regarding 
the compatibility of their proposed spectrum scheme with the plan 
adopted in the Second Report and Order (Second R&O) in this proceeding, 
and regarding an AMT/DSST demonstration of the technical feasibility of 
their broadband PCS equipment. However, the Commission reaffirmed its 
findings that AMT/DSST's proposal is incompatible with the 2 GHz 
broadband PCS rules and that AMT/DSST had not demonstrated technical 
feasibility.
    6. In its petition for reconsideration, Ameritech argued that it 
satisfied all of the requirements for a pioneer's preference award in 
its preference request and that its request and experimental trial 
demonstrate a level of innovation equal to or greater than that shown 
by the three broadband PCS preference recipients. However, the 
Commission found that Ameritech had not demonstrated overall broadband 
PCS system innovations.
    7. Corporate Technology Partners (CTP) filed a petition for 
reconsideration with the Commission's Office of the Secretary on April 
7, 1994, eight days after the statutory filing deadline in this 
proceeding. The Commission found that it lacked discretion to accept 
the petition, and accordingly dismissed CTP's petition.
    8. In its petition for reconsideration, Nextel Communications, Inc. 
(Nextel) argued that it warrants a pioneer's preference for its Digital 
Mobile technology. However, the Commission found that Nextel developed 
Digital Mobile technology for implementation of 800 MHz Specialized 
Mobile Radio services, and that Nextel had failed to demonstrate any 
aspects of innovative technology that were developed for or that have 
unique relevance to 2 GHz broadband PCS.
    9. In its petition for reconsideration, Personal Communications 
Network Services of New York, Inc. (PCNS-NY) requested that the 
Commission correct the Third R&O by eliminating a reference to an 
opposition to its pioneer's preference request. However, the Commission 
found that the Third R&O set forth an accurate history that should not 
have a deleterious effect on PCNS-NY's reputation.
    10. In its petition for reconsideration, Qualcomm Incorporated 
(Qualcomm) claimed that it satisfied the Commission's pioneer's 
preference criteria and should be awarded a preference. However, the 
Commission found that Qualcomm had not made a showing of significant 
development of innovative broadband PCS technology nor raised on 
reconsideration any new issue that was not fully addressed in the Third 
R&O.
    11. In its petition for reconsideration, Spatial Communications 
Inc. (SCI) requested that the Commission reconsider its denial of SCI's 
pioneer's preference request for SCI's work in developing Spatial 
Division Multiple Access technology. SCI based its argument for 
reconsideration solely on the fact that the Commission did not consider 
an experimental report filed by SCI's parent company, ArrayComm, Inc. 
(ArrayComm). However, the Commission found that the report was not 
filed in the name of the real party in interest, was filed over a year 
later than SCI's original request, and was not appropriately 
referenced.

Ordering Clause

    12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions for 
reconsideration filed by Advanced Cordless Technologies, Inc. and 
Corporate Technology Partners ARE DISMISSED; and that the petitions for 
reconsideration filed by Advanced MobileComm Technologies, Inc. and 
Digital Spread Spectrum Technologies, Inc.; Ameritech; Nextel 
Communications, Inc.; Personal Communications Network Services of New 
York, Inc.; Qualcomm Incorporated; and Spatial Communications Inc. ARE 
DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 2

    Frequency allocation and radio treaty matters, General rules and 
regulations, Radio.

47 CFR Part 15

    Communications equipment, Radio, Radio frequency devices.

47 CFR Part 24

    Personal communications services.

Federal Communications Commission.
LaVera F. Marshall,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-31559 Filed 12-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M