Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | File No. 0002647326          |
|                                  | * |                              |
| PAGING SYSTEMS, INC.             | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Assignor                         | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| and                              | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| AMERICAN TELECASTING OF          | ) |                              |
| OKLAHOMA, INC.                   | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Assignee                         |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Application For Assignment of    | * |                              |
| Broadband Radio Service Station  | ) |                              |
| WHT743, Wichita, Kansas          | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: January 29, 2007 Released: January 29, 2007**

By the Deputy Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  On June 23, 2006, Paging Systems, Inc. ("PSI") filed an application
    seeking Commission consent to assign the license for Broadband Radio
    Service (BRS) Station WHT743, Wichita, Kansas, to American
    Telecasting of Oklahoma, Inc. ("American Telecasting").[^1] On July
    12, 2006, Warren C. Havens ("Havens"), AMTS Consortium LLC ("AMTS
    Consortium"), Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC ("THL"), Telesaurus VPC LLC
    ("TVL"), and Intelligent Transportation and Monitoring Wireless LLC
    ("Intelligent") filed, collectively, a petition to deny the
    application ("PTD").[^2] For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss
    the PTD.

# BACKGROUND

2.  On November 6, 2001, PSI was granted a license to operate BRS
    Station WHT743 on the E Channel Group in Wichita, Kansas.[^3] On
    June 23, 2006, PSI filed an application to assign the license for
    Station WHT743 to American Telecasting, a wholly owned subsidiary of
    the Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel"). According to the
    applicants, the assignment of Station WHT743 to American Telecasting
    will serve the public interest because it will permit Sprint Nextel
    to deploy broadband infrastructure more efficiently and develop
    wireless, interactive multimedia communications solutions for
    consumers in the Wichita, Kansas area.[^4]

3.  On July 12, 2006, the instant PTD was filed against the application.
    PSI filed an opposition to the PTD on July 26, 2006.[^5] A reply to
    the opposition was thereafter filed by the petitioners on August 7,
    2006.[^6]

    **III. DISCUSSION**

4.  The petitioners contend that they have standing to file the PTD
    because they hold licenses "which may provide competitive services"
    to those offered by PSI[^7] and because "they are competitors with
    PSI in several markets and within various radio services."[^8] The
    petitioners ask the Commission to deny the application to assign
    Station WHT743 from PSI to American Telecasting because PSI "lacks
    the character and fitness to hold or assign the \[license for
    Station WHT743\] due to its actions, including numerous fraudulent
    licensing applications, in the AMTS service."[^9] The PTD explains
    that "\[t\]hese issues of fraud and disqualification to hold
    licenses are currently pending before the Commission."[^10] The PTD
    thereafter notes and incorporates by reference those pleadings filed
    by the petitioners challenging the basic character qualifications of
    PSI in other proceedings.[^11] In the alternative, the petitioners
    request that the Commission hold the instant assignment application
    in abeyance pending final resolution of the referenced proceedings
    or condition any grant of it upon the outcome and findings of these
    proceedings.[^12]

5.  PSI contends that the petitioners lack standing to petition for the
    denial of the instant assignment application.[^13] PSI states that
    Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended,[^14] "requires specifics concerning the location,
    operational status and nature of service actually provided that
    would be competitive with the services provided by PSI."[^15] PSI
    argues that services that may be offered by an applicant or licensee
    in the future and applications that have not yet been acted upon by
    the Commission are insufficient to accord the petitioners standing
    to file the instant PTD.[^16] PSI also contends that the petitioners
    have raised similar allegations in the context of other Commission
    proceedings and that "this proceeding is not the place . . . to
    reargue the positions already taken in other matters still
    pending."[^17] PSI alleges that the "so-called facts by Petitioners
    are nothing more than allegations and speculation contained in other
    filings."[^18] PSI emphasizes that the PTD fails to cite a
    Commission decision that makes adverse findings with respect to
    PSI's qualifications to hold Commission licenses.[^19]

6.  Section 1.939(d) of the Commission's Rules requires that a petition
    to deny contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a
    *prima facie* showing that the petitioner is a party in interest and
    that a grant of the application would be inconsistent with the
    public interest, convenience and necessity.[^20] To establish a
    party in interest standing, a petitioner must allege facts
    sufficient to demonstrate that grant of the subject applications
    would cause it to suffer a direct injury.[^21] In addition, a
    petitioner must demonstrate a causal link between the claimed injury
    and the challenged action.[^22] Based on our review of the record in
    this proceeding, we find that the PTD fails to meet this
    standard.[^23]

7.  We find that the PTD fails to contain specific allegations of fact
    sufficient to make a *prima facie* showing that the petitioners,
    individually or collectively, have the requisite standing to file
    the instant PTD.[^24] The petitioners are required to specifically
    plead and establish standing in the PTD.[^25] Petitioners fail to
    explain how any of the license holdings referenced in the PTD[^26]
    accord it broad standing to challenge the instant application to
    assign a BRS station from PSI to American Telecasting.[^27] The
    petitioners' reliance on *Mobex*[^28] is misplaced.[^29] *Mobex*
    addressed the specific issue of whether, "in certain instances, the
    need to locate and monitor mobile radio units could be equally met
    by AMTS or LMS."[^30] *Mobex* does not support the petitioners'
    broad presumption that holding a license in any wireless service in
    the Wichita, Kansas area is sufficient to accord them standing to
    file the instant PTD against an application to assign a BRS station
    in the Wichita, Kansas area from PSI to American Telecasting.[^31]
    The PTD offers no explanation how the petitioners' referenced
    AMTS[^32] licenses, MAS[^33] licenses, or LMS[^34] applications
    could be used to provide high-speed, high-capacity broadband service
    to compete with BRS[^35] facilities for the provision of integrated
    access to voice, high-speed data, video-on-demand, and interactive
    delivery services from a wireless device.[^36] We also reject the
    petitioners' contention that, because "they are competitors with PSI
    in several markets and within various radio services,"[^37] they
    have standing to file the instant PTD.[^38] The petitioners cite no
    precedent for such a broad declaration of standing. Accordingly, we
    dismiss the PTD.[^39]

8.  While the PTD has been dismissed, it is in our discretion to
    informally consider its allegations.[^40] We have determined that
    petitioners' arguments provide no basis for denying the Application.
    Petitioners do not contend that PSI has engaged in any misconduct
    with respect to the stations at issue. We also note that
    petitioners' allegations concerning Auction 61 and the AMTS stations
    have been rejected in other contexts and that the arguments will be
    considered when the pending petitions challenging those orders are
    resolved.[^41]

9.  The former PSCID specifically rejected the petitioners' allegation
    that PSI lacks the requisite character qualifications to be a
    Commission licensee in the *PSI MAS Order*.[^42] In that proceeding,
    the petitioners filed a petition to deny PSI's long-form application
    for the MAS licenses for which PSI was the high bidder in Auction
    No. 59.[^43] As in the instant PTD, the petitioners challenged the
    basic character qualifications of PSI in that proceeding and
    incorporated by reference several other pleadings and proceedings
    where the petitioners raised the issue before the Commission.[^44]
    The former PSCID found that "specific findings and legal conclusions
    regarding the construction status of, and PSI's representations
    regarding, the Great Lakes AMTS stations and AMTS Station WHG545 are
    more appropriately considered in the pending proceedings involving
    those stations, rather than the instant proceeding."[^45] The former
    PSCID noted that, "\[t\]o date, there has been no finding against
    PSI in those proceedings, or in any other proceeding, of a
    disqualifying lack of character."[^46] Therefore, the former PSCID
    concluded that, "\[i\]n the absence of such a finding, or at least a
    determination in one of those other proceedings that PSI's basic
    qualifications to hold any Commission license should be designated
    for hearing, we see no basis to deny the instant Application."[^47]
    The petitioners are currently seeking reconsideration of the *PSI
    MAS Order*.[^48] We find that the same rationale applies here.

# conclusion and ORDERING CLAUSES

10. For the reasons discussed above, we find that the PTD fails to
    contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a *prima
    facie* showing that the petitioners, individually or collectively,
    have the requisite standing to file the instant PTD.[^49] We
    therefore dismiss the PTD. After considering the PTD as an informal
    complaint,[^50] we conclude that the petitioners have failed to
    demonstrate how denial of the instant assignment application would
    serve the public interest.

11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§154(i), 309, and
    Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.939, that the
    Petition to Deny filed by Warren C. Havens, AMTS Consortium LLC,
    Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Telesaurus VPC LLC, and Intelligent
    Transportation and Monitoring Wireless LLC on July 12, 2006 IS
    DISMISSED.

12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and
    Section 1.948 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.948, that the
    licensing staff of the Broadband Division SHALL PROCESS the
    application filed by Paging Systems, Inc. (File No. 0002647326) in
    accordance with this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* and the
    applicable Commission's Rules.

13. 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

John J. Schauble

Deputy Chief, Broadband Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: File No. 0002647326 (June 23, 2006) (Application).

[^2]: Warren C. Havens, AMTS Consortium LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC,
    Telesaurus VPC LLC, and Intelligent Transportation and Monitoring
    Wireless LLC, Petition to Deny (July 12, 2006). We herein refer to
    the petitioning parties collectively as petitioners.

[^3]: Specifically, BRS Station WHT743 is authorized to use Channels E1
    through E4.

[^4]: *See* Application, Public Interest Statement.

[^5]: Paging Systems, Inc., Opposition to Petition to Deny (July 26,
    2006) (Opposition).

[^6]: Warren C. Havens, AMTS Consortium LLC, and Telesaurus Holdings GB
    LLC, Telesaurus VPC LLC, and Intelligent Transportation and
    Monitoring Wireless LLC, Reply to Opposition to Petition to Deny
    (Aug. 7, 2006) (Reply).

[^7]: *See* PTD at 1. The PTD generally states that the petitioners'
    "license holdings, as witnessed by the Commission's ULS records,"
    provide them with the requisite standing to challenge the instant
    assignment application of a BRS station. *Id.* Specifically, the PTD
    lists Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS) Station
    WQCP815; Multiple Address System (MAS) Stations WQER424, WQER425,
    WQER426, WQER427, WQER428, WQER429; and a pending application for a
    Location and Monitoring Service (LMS) geographic area license for
    Wichita, Kansas as those "license holdings" which may provide
    competitive services to those offered by Station WHT743. *See id.*
    at 1 n.1. In addition, the PTD notes that an application is pending
    to assign 220-222 MHz Service Stations WPOI542, WPOI543, WPOI544,
    Wichita, Kansas, to Havens. *See id.*

[^8]: The PTD does not specify the markets in which the petitioners
    compete with PSI. The PTD does reference, however, AMTS and MAS as
    examples of two services within which the petitioners may compete
    with PSI. *See id.* at 1. The PTD raises concerns that PSI will
    benefit from the instant assignment of BRS Station WHT743 to
    American Telecasting and furnish PSI with additional funds with
    which it may "more effectively hinder, compete and pursue frivolous
    actions deleterious to Petitioners. . . ." *Id.* at 1. None of the
    petitioners holds BRS licenses in the Wichita, Kansas area.

[^9]: *Id.* at 1.

[^10]: *Id.* at 1.

[^11]: *See id.* at 2.

[^12]: *See id.* at 3.

[^13]: *See* Opposition at 3-4.

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1).

[^15]: Opposition at 4.

[^16]: *See id.*

[^17]: *Id.* at 5. PSI also notes that the Commission has taken action
    in a number of the proceedings that were identified by the
    petitioners. *See id.* at 6. The petitioners respond by noting that
    any Commission action taken in those proceedings is not final
    because they have filed petitions seeking reconsideration or
    applications seeking full Commission review of those decisions.
    *See* Reply.

[^18]: *See* Opposition at 6.

[^19]: *See id.*

[^20]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(d).

[^21]: *See* AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc., *Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 4587, 4588 ¶ 3
    (WTB CWD 2000) (*AT&T Wireless*) (citing *Sierra Club v. Morton*,
    405 U.S. 727, 73 (1972); Lawrence N. Brandt, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 3 FCC Rcd 4082 (1988).

[^22]: *AT&T Wireless*, 15 FCC Rcd at 4588 ¶ 3 (citing *Duke Power Co.
    v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc*. 438 U.S. 59, 72, 78
    (1978)).

[^23]: In addition, given our disposition of this matter, we do not
    reach PSI's other procedural challenge to the PTD, which asserts
    that service of the PTD on PSI's counsel was defective under 47
    C.F.R. § 1.47. *See* Opposition at 2-3.

[^24]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(d)(1). Section 309(d)(1) of the
    Communications Act, as amended, permits any "party in interest" to
    file a petition to deny any application. 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1). To
    establish standing, a petitioner must show "(1) a distinct and
    palpable personal injury-in-fact that is (2) traceable to the
    respondent\'s conduct and (3) redressable by the relief requested."
    *See* Weblink Wireless, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 17 FCC
    Rcd 24642, 24647 ¶ 11 (WTB 2002); AT&T Corp., Complainant, v.
    Business Telecom, Inc., Defendants, *Order on Reconsideration*, 16
    FCC Rcd 21750, 21753-21754 ¶ 7 (2001); Chris C. Hudgins, *Order on
    Reconsideration*, 16 FCC Rcd 7941 (2001).

[^25]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(d)(1).

[^26]: *See* PTD at 2. We reject the petitioners' attempt to broadly
    establish standing by generally referencing the petitioners'
    "license holdings, as witnessed by the Commission's ULS records."
    PTD at 1. 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(d)(1) requires a petitioner to set-forth
    specific allegations of fact to make a *prima facie* showing that
    the petitioner is a party in interest. However, we will herein
    address the issue of whether the specific license holdings
    referenced in the PTD accord the petitioners' standing to challenge
    the instant assignment application of a BRS station. *See* PTD at 2.

[^27]: *See* PTD at 1-2; *see also* Reply at 2-3.

[^28]: Mobex Network Services, LLC, *Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 12305 (WTB PSPWD
    2003) (*Mobex*).

[^29]: *See* PTD at 1-2; *see also* Reply 2-3.

[^30]: *Mobex,* 18 FCC Rcd at 12307 ¶ 5. Specifically, the former Public
    Safety and Private Wireless Division (PSWPD) of the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau concluded that it was conceivable for AMTS
    and LMS to compete for customers who need to locate and monitor
    mobile radio units. *See id.* Therefore, in *Mobex,* an LMS licensee
    was found to have standing to file a petition to deny against an
    application to modify AMTS facilities "in view of the fact that
    there was a service area overlap" where the need to locate and
    monitor mobile radio units could be equally met by the AMTS licensee
    or the LMS licensee within that service area. *Id.*

[^31]: *See* PTD at 1-2; *see also* Reply 2-3. The PTD references other
    proceedings where one or more of the petitioners were found to have
    standing to file a petition to deny against PSI or another applicant
    or licensee. *See* PTD at 2. However, the petitioners fail to
    explain the relevancy of those proceedings in the context of the
    instant PTD. For example, the former Public Safety and Critical
    Infrastructure Division (PSICD) of the Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau found that AMTS Consortium and Intelligent had standing to
    challenge the long-form AMTS application filed by PSI at the
    conclusion of Auction No. 61 because AMTS Consortium and Intelligent
    were both competing participants in Auction No. 61. *See* Maritime
    Communications Land Mobile, LLC, Paging Systems, Inc., *Order,* 21
    FCC Rcd 8794 (WTB PSCID 2006) (*PSI AMTS Auction 61 Order*); *see
    also* Paging Systems, Inc., *Order*, 21 FCC Rcd 3032 (WTB PSCID
    2006) (finding that Intelligent had standing to file a petition to
    deny against the long-form AMTS application filed by PSI in Auction
    No. 59 because it was a competing bidder against PSI in Auction No.
    59); *High Plains Wireless, L.P. v. FCC*, 276 F.3d 599, 605 (D.C.
    Cir. 2002) (holding that auction participant had standing to
    challenge award to another of a license for which it bid).

[^32]: AMTS stations provide automated, integrated, interconnected
    ship-to-shore communications similar to a cellular phone system for
    tugs, barges, and other maritime vessels. *See* Amendment of Parts 2
    and 80 of the Commission\'s Rules Applicable to Automated Maritime
    Telecommunications Systems (AMTS), *First Report and Order*, GEN
    Docket No. 88-732, 6 FCC Rcd 437, 437 ¶ 3 (1991) (*AMTS First Report
    and Order*).

[^33]: MAS is a private fixed microwave radio service that operates on
    spectrum in the 900 MHz band for point-to-multipoint and
    multipoint-to-point communications. *See* Amendment of the
    Commission's Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, *Report and
    Order*, WT Docket No. 97-81, 15 FCC Rcd 11956, 11957 ¶ 1 (2000),
    *corrected by* Erratum, 15 FCC Rcd 16145, *reconsideration granted
    in part*, 16 FCC Rcd 12181 (2001) (*MAS Report and Order*). MAS
    licenses are available for the terrestrial point-to-multipoint and
    point-to-point fixed and mobile transmissions of a licensee's
    products or services, excluding video entertainment material, to a
    licensee's customer or for its own internal communications.

[^34]: LMS provides the use of non-voice signaling methods to locate or
    monitor mobile radio units. LMS systems may transmit and receive
    voice and non-voice status and instructional information related to
    such units. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.7.

[^35]: BRS provides integrated access to broadband technologies,
    including high-speed digital technologies that provide consumers
    integrated access to voice, high-speed data, video-on-demand, and
    interactive delivery services. In The Matter Of Amendment Of Parts
    1, 21, 73, 74 And 101 Of The Commission\'s Rules To Facilitate The
    Provision Of Fixed And Mobile Broadband Access, Educational And
    Other Advanced Services In The 2150-2162 And 2500-2690 MHz Bands,
    *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, WT
    Docket No. 03-66, 19 FCC Rcd 14165, ¶ 9 (2004).

[^36]: *See, e.g., Mobex,* 18 FCC Rcd at 12307 ¶ 5 (discussed above);
    *see also New World Radio, Inc. v. FCC,* 294 F.3d 164, 169-72 (D.C.
    Cir. 2002) (standing "is premised on the petitioner's status as a
    *direct* and *current* competitor whose bottom line may be adversely
    affected by the challenged government action," so no standing to
    challenge license grant that "is, at most, the first step in the
    direction of future competition" and thus economic injury dependent
    on "chain of events"); *see also* *KERM, Inc. v. FCC,* 353 F.3d 57,
    61 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (no standing to challenge FCC decision not to
    pursue enforcement action against station that serves much of the
    same audience as petitioner where latter made only "'bare
    allegations'" of competitive injury without any evidence of adverse
    financial effects resulting from broadcast of disputed commercials)
    (quoting *Sierra Club v. EPA*, 292 F.3d 895, 898 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).

[^37]: The PTD does not specify the markets in which the petitioners
    compete with PSI. The PTD does reference, however, AMTS and MAS as
    examples of two services within which the petitioners may compete
    with PSI. *See* PTD at 1. None of the petitioners holds BRS licenses
    in the Wichita, Kansas area.

[^38]: The PTD raises concerns that PSI will benefit from the instant
    assignment of BRS Station WHT743 to American Telecasting and thereby
    obtain additional funds that could be used to compete against the
    petitioners in other markets and in other services, such as AMTS and
    MAS. *See* PTD at 1.

[^39]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.41.

[^40]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.41.

[^41]: *See* Maritime Communications Land Mobile, LLC, Paging Systems,
    Inc., *Order,* 21 FCC Rcd 8794 (WTB PSCID 2006) (rejecting
    petitioners' arguments that the long-form application filed by PSI
    at the conclusion of AMTS Auction No. 61 should be denied because
    PSI's incumbent site-based B-Block license in Hawaii is no longer
    valid, and PSI's concealment of this invalidity fraudulently
    dissuaded the petitioners from bidding more aggressively on the
    B-Block license for that geographic area); Paging Systems, Inc.,
    *Order,* 21 FCC Rcd 7225 (WTB PSCID 2006) (PSCID concludes that it
    would not further the public interest to deny a renewal application
    based on alleged defects in construction notifications because "the
    purpose of a construction notification requirement is to confirm
    that licensees have met their responsibility, not to cancel the
    licenses for legitimately operating facilities. . . . Even assuming
    *arguendo* that the initial activation notices were defective,
    deeming the licenses for the constructed stations to have
    automatically canceled as a result would not further the purpose of
    the construction notification requirement.") (internal citation
    omitted); Paging Systems, Inc., *Order on Reconsideration*, 21 FCC
    Rcd 5848 (WTB PSCID 2006) (affirming the denial of a petition to
    deny the long-form application filed by PSI at the conclusion of the
    first auction for AMTS licenses (Auction No. 57)); *see also* Paging
    Systems, Inc., *Order*, 20 FCC Rcd 8145 (WTB PSCID 2005).

[^42]: *See* Paging Systems, Inc., *Order*, 21 FCC Rcd 3032 (WTB PSCID
    2006) (*PSI MAS Order*).

[^43]: MAS is a private fixed microwave radio service that operates on
    spectrum in the 900 MHz band for point-to-multipoint and
    multipoint-to-point communications. *See* Amendment of the
    Commission's Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, *Report and
    Order*, WT Docket No. 97-81, 15 FCC Rcd 11956, 11957 ¶ 1 (2000),
    *corrected by* Erratum, 15 FCC Rcd 16145, *reconsideration granted
    in part*, 16 FCC Rcd 12181 (2001) (*MAS Report and Order*).

[^44]: *See PSI MAS Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 3034-3036 ¶¶ 5, 8-10; *see
    also* PTD at 2.

[^45]: *PSI MAS Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 3036 ¶ 10.

[^46]: *Id.*

[^47]: *Id.* The former PSCID further noted that "\[e\]ven if it is
    ultimately determined that PSI's applications misstated the
    construction status of the AMTS stations in question, as alleged by
    the Petitioners, it would not necessarily call into question PSI's
    basic qualifications." *Id.*

[^48]: *See* Warren C. Havens, Telesaurus VPC LLC, and Telesaurus
    Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless
    LLC, Petition for Reconsideration, File No. 0002232564 (filed Apr.
    24, 2006).

[^49]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(d); 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1).

[^50]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.41.