**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| The Application for Review of    | ) |                              |
| the Denial of Vista              | * |                              |
| Communications, Inc.'s Request   | * |                              |
| for Waiver of the Installment    |   |                              |
| Payment Rules for                | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| the 218-219 MHz Service          | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: August 14, 2003 Released: August 15, 2003**

**By the Commission:**

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1\. In this Order, we deny an Application for Review filed on behalf of
Vista Communications, Inc. ("Vista").[^1] Petitioner challenges a
decision by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("Bureau") affirming
the Auctions and Industry Analysis Division's ("Division") denial of
Vista's request for waiver of the installment payment rules for the
218-219 MHz Service.[^2]

**II. BACKGROUND**

2\. In September 1994, the Bureau announced that Vista was the high
bidder for two Interactive Video and Data Service ("IVDS") licenses.[^3]
As a small business, Vista was eligible to pay for its winning bids
through the Commission's installment payment plan.[^4] Grant of the
licenses was conditioned upon Vista's full and timely performance of all
installment payment obligations.[^5]

3\. Vista acknowledges that after making its March 31, 1997 installment
payments, it ceased making payments on the licenses.[^6] Vista's next
installment payment was due on June 30, 1997. The Commission's rules at
that time provided that in the event a license holder was more than
ninety days delinquent on any installment payment, its license would
cancel automatically.[^7] If, during the first ninety days following any
missed installment payment, a licensee required additional time to make
its payment, the rules allowed the licensee to request that the
Commission grant a grace period of three to six months, during which no
installment payments need be made.[^8] Thus, under the Commission's
rules, Vista had until September 28, 1997, to either submit the full
amount of the June 30, 1997 installment payments or file a grace period
request. Vista did neither,[^9] and as a result, the licenses
automatically canceled on September 29, 1997.

4\. On September 17, 1998, the Commission issued the *218-219 MHz Flex
Order*, which, among other measures, re-designated IVDS as the 218-219
MHz Service and proposed a financial restructuring scheme that allowed
non-defaulting licensees the option of retaining their licenses under
reamortized payment obligations or returning their licenses to the
Commission in exchange for cancellation of debt, *i.e.*, amnesty.[^10]

5\. On June 1, 1999, more than 18 months after the licenses canceled,
Vista filed a request for waiver of the grace period and automatic
cancellation provisions of the installment payment rules.[^11] Vista
alleged that its confusion and uncertainty over its installment payment
schedule and its lack of knowledge regarding the grace period provisions
justified grant of the waiver.[^12] In its Waiver Request, Vista also
argued that the Commission's proposal in the *218-219 MHz Flex Order* to
allow licensees that had not made installment payments, but had filed
timely grace period requests, to retain their license(s), while refusing
to permit licensees that made "substantial payments" to retain their
license(s), would be inequitable.[^13]

6\. On September 10, 1999, while Vista's Waiver Request remained
pending, the Commission issued the *218-219 MHz Restructuring Order*,
which, among other measures, adopted a financial restructuring plan for
"Eligible Licensees."[^14] Eligible Licensees included those that: (i)
were current in installment payments as of March 16, 1998; (ii) were
less than ninety days delinquent on the last payment due before March
16, 1998; or (iii) had properly filed grace period requests under the
former installment payment rules.[^15] "Ineligible Entities" were those
that had made second down payments and either (i) made some installment
payments, but were not current in their installment payments as of March
16, 1998, and did not have a grace period request on file in conformance
with the former rules; or (ii) never made any installment payments and
did not have a timely filed grace period request on file.[^16]
Ineligible Entities were not entitled to participate in the
restructuring plan for the 218-219 MHz Service because they lost their
licenses through default.[^17] Ineligible Entities, however, were
granted debt forgiveness for any outstanding balances owed and were
informed that their previously paid installments would be refunded.[^18]
Finally, the Commission also delegated to the Bureau and the Office of
Managing Director ("OMD") the authority to implement the provisions in
the *218-219 MHz Restructuring Order*.[^19]

7\. Subsequently, on December 3, 1999, Vista filed a petition for
reconsideration of the *218-219 MHz Restructuring Order*.[^20] In this
petition, Vista raised the same arguments contained in its Waiver
Request. On December 13, 2000, the Commission issued the *218-219 MHz
Second Order on Reconsideration*,[^21] which, among other things,
affirmed the definition of Eligible Licensee set forth in the *218-219
MHz Restructuring Order*[^22] and rejected Vista's petition for
reconsideration of the *218-219 MHz Restructuring Order*.[^23]

8\. Pursuant to its delegated authority, the Bureau sent individual
letters on January 6, 2000, to former and current 218-219 MHz licensees
confirming their status.[^24] The letter sent to Vista confirmed that it
was not eligible to participate in the restructuring plan.[^25]
Additionally, on April 20, 2000, the Bureau issued two public notices
explaining the restructuring procedures.[^26] One of those public
notices, the *Implementation Public Notice*, included a list of entities
that would be eligible to participate in the 218-219 MHz restructuring
plan.[^27] Vista was not among those listed as eligible.[^28]

9\. On January 3, 2001, the Bureau released a public notice containing
information regarding election procedures and also including an amended
list of Eligible Licensees.[^29] Again, Vista was not among those listed
as eligible for participation in the restructuring plan. Vista did not
dispute the Bureau's confirmation of Vista's status in the *Vista
Ineligibility Letter*, nor did it dispute that it was not included in
the list of eligible entities in the *Implementation Public Notice* or
the *Election Public Notice*.

10\. On April 9, 2001, Vista filed a petition for review of the orders
implementing the Commission's comprehensive restructuring of the 218-219
MHz Service before the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit.[^30] It remains pending.

11\. On June 12, 2001, the Division issued an order denying Vista's
Waiver Request.[^31] In the *Vista Order*, the Division described
Vista's allegations in detail and explained that Vista's alleged
confusion regarding the application of the installment payment rules and
its installment payment schedule did not justify grant of the Waiver
Request.[^32] As part of this determination, the Division found that
Vista's assumption that it could withhold payments despite the
Commission's repeated notification of the consequences that would flow
from failure to make full and timely installment payments was
unreasonable.[^33] In making this determination, the Division took
notice of the Commission's prior conclusion, in the context of Vista's
challenge to the *218-219 MHz Restructuring Order*, that "even the most
favorable reading of the Commission's Orders and letters to licensees
would not reasonably lead a licensee to believe that it was excused from
its obligation to make payments, or that it did not need to file a grace
period request if it determined that it could not make timely
payments."[^34] The Division also explained that Vista, just as every
Commission licensee, was charged with knowledge of the applicable
regulations.[^35] Thus, the Division found that Vista's alleged lack of
knowledge with respect to the grace period rules also did not justify
waiver of the rules and it had failed to demonstrate unique or unusual
circumstances that would warrant waiver of the rules.[^36]

12\. The Division also addressed Vista's contention that enforcement of
the rules that resulted in the automatic cancellation of Vista's license
would be inequitable and contrary to the underlying purpose of the
rules.[^37] Vista alleged that it would be unfair to allow licensees
that made no installment payments, but filed timely grace period
requests, to retain their licenses, while refusing to permit licensees
that had made "substantial payments," such as Vista, to retain their
licenses.[^38] The Division noted that the Commission had previously
rejected this argument when Vista raised it as part of a reconsideration
petition essentially seeking to change the definition of "Eligible
Licensee" to include those who had made "substantial payments."[^39] The
Division also explained that strict enforcement of the Commission's
payment rules ensures that applicants have the necessary financial
qualifications to be a Commission licensee and that spectrum is awarded
to those qualified bidders who value the spectrum most.[^40] Further,
the Division stated that insisting that licensees demonstrate their
ability to pay as a condition to holding licenses is essential to a fair
and efficient licensing process, is fair to all participants in the
Commission's auctions, including those who won licenses in the auctions
and those who did not, and fosters the promotion of economic opportunity
and competition in the marketplace.[^41]

13\. Finally, in the *Vista Order* the Division denied Vista's request,
made in the alternative, to make retroactive payment.[^42] In explaining
its decision, the Division observed that, in essence, this request
sought a change to the Commission's eligibility rules and this change
had previously been denied by the Commission.[^43] In the *218-219 MHz
Second Order on Reconsideration,* the Commission specifically rejected
Vista's proposal that the Commission reconsider the *218-219 MHz
Restructuring Order* to allow retroactive payments by former licensees
such as Vista.[^44] The Commission determined that granting Vista's
request would undermine the Commission's rules requiring timely and full
payment as a condition of retaining the license.[^45] The Commission
concluded that in light of the ample notice provided licensees regarding
the payment rules,[^46] and the generous provisions for Ineligible
Entities provided in the *218-219 MHz Restructuring Order*, Vista's
suggestion that it be allowed to make retroactive payments was
unsupportable.[^47] Thus, in keeping with the Commission's earlier
rejection of this suggestion, the Division rejected Vista's proposal to
allow it to make retroactive payments in order to become eligible for
participation in the 218-219 MHz Service restructuring plan.[^48]

14\. On July 12, 2001, Vista filed a petition for reconsideration of the
*Vista Order*.[^49] Vista argued that the Division failed to properly
consider Vista's Waiver Request.[^50] Specifically, Vista alleged that
the Division failed to consider the effect that changes to the
installment payment schedule had upon Vista.[^51] Vista also alleged
that the 218-219 MHz restructuring plan was inequitable.[^52] Finally,
Vista contended that the Division failed to address precedent cited in
the Waiver Request that supported the grant of a waiver and acceptance
of post-cancellation payment in this instance.[^53]

15\. The Bureau considered Vista's Petition and fully examined each of
Vista's allegations in detail and found in the *Vista Order on
Reconsideration* that Vista's alleged lack of knowledge with respect to
the grace period rules and alleged confusion failed to demonstrate
unique or unusual circumstances that would warrant waiver of the
rules.[^54] With respect to Vista's contention that the 218-219 MHz
financial restructuring plan was inequitable, the Bureau noted that the
Commission previously considered and rejected this argument in the
*218-219 MHz Second Order on Reconsideration*.[^55]

16\. With respect to Vista's allegation in the Petition that the
Division failed to address certain orders cited in the Waiver Request
that supported its Waiver Request and the acceptance of
post-cancellation payments by the Commission,[^56] the Bureau found that
Vista's characterization of those cases was incorrect.[^57] The Bureau
observed that the first line of cases cited in the Waiver Request
involved requests to waive the Commission's down payment or final
payment rules, not the installment payment rules. The Bureau, relying
upon *Southern Communications*,[^58] explained that requests for waiver
of a winning bidder's down payment or final payment obligations are of
limited applicability with respect to a licensee's request for waiver of
installment payment obligations.[^59] The Bureau also explained that the
second line of cases cited by Vista involved the constructive waiver of
the automatic cancellation rule. In those instances, as a result of
administrative oversight, it was determined that a constructive waiver
of the installment payment deadline had occurred. The Bureau explained
that, in contrast, in this instance the Commission did not act in a way
that could have been construed as waiving the installment payment
deadline for the June 30, 1997 installment payments.[^60] The Bureau
also concluded that Vista supplied such minimal argument in support of
its characterization that the Division was not required to explain how
those cases were inapplicable.[^61]

**III. DISCUSSION**

17\. In the Application for Review, Petitioner proffers the same
arguments that it advanced in prior pleadings.[^62] Specifically,
Petitioner requests that the Commission review whether denial of the
Waiver Request conflicts with Commission and Bureau precedent; and
whether post-cancellation payment offers by Vista were properly
considered by the Division and the Bureau, or presented a question of
policy not previously resolved by the Commission.[^63] We find that the
Division and the Bureau each thoroughly addressed these arguments in
their previous orders and correctly applied precedent. The Division and
the Bureau correctly pointed out in their respective orders that the
questions of policy presented in Vista's Waiver Request had, in fact,
been previously resolved by the Commission in the *218-219 Second Order
on Reconsideration*.[^64] In rejecting Vista's request to make a
post-cancellation payment, the Division noted that the same request was
expressly rejected by the Commission in the *218-219 Second Order on
Reconsideration*.[^65] We find nothing in the arguments that Petitioner
made in its Application for Review that would lead us to change the
outcome of the decisions below or modify our existing precedent.[^66]
Accordingly, we deny Petitioner's Application for Review.

**IV. ORDERING CLAUSE**

18\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5), and
Section 1.115(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. § 1.115(g), the
Application for Review filed on behalf of Vista Communications, Inc. in
the above-captioned proceeding is DENIED.

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

[^1]: Application for Review, filed by Piper Rudnick, LLP ("Petitioner")
    on March 24, 2003 ("Application for Review"*)*.

[^2]: Petition for Reconsideration of the Denial of Vista
    Communications, Inc.\'s Request for Waiver of the Installment
    Payment Rules for the 218-219 MHz Service, *Order on
    Reconsideration*, 18 FCC Rcd 2540 (2003) ("*Vista Order on
    Reconsideration*"); *see also* Letter to E. Ashton Johnston, Esq.,
    Counsel for Vista Communications, Inc., from Margaret Wiener, Chief,
    Auctions and Industry and Analysis Division, 16 FCC Rcd 12,430
    (2001) (\"*Vista Order*\").

[^3]: Interactive Video And Data Service (IVDS) Applications Accepted
    For Filing, *Public Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd 6227 (1994) (Vista submitted
    the winning bids on license IVM135A, Eugene, OR., and license
    IVM148A, Salem, OR.). IVDS was later re-designated 218-219 MHz
    Service. *See* ¶ 4, infra.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(d) (1994).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(d)(4) (1994); Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau Staff Clarifies "Grace Period" Rule for IVDS "Auction"
    Licensees Paying By Installment Payments, *Public Notice*, 10 FCC
    Rcd 10,724 (1995) (WTB) ("*IVDS Grace Period PN*").

[^6]: Application for Review at 5 ("After making its interest-only
    payments for March 31, 1997, Vista made no further payments due to
    its confusion over the payment schedule and uncertainty about its
    obligations as a result of the changes in the overall IVDS payment
    program. Vista did not file a grace period request at the time
    because it did not know it was required to do so.").

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e)(4) (1997).

[^8]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e)(4)(ii) (1997)*.*

[^9]: Application for Review, 5.

[^10]: Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service and Amendment of
    Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Allow Interactive Video and
    Data Service Licensees to Provide Mobile Services (proceeding
    terminated), *Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 13 FCC Rcd 19,064 (1998) ("*219-219 MHz Flex
    Order*").

[^11]: Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, from E. Ashton Johnston, Esq., dated June 1, 1999 ("Waiver
    Request"). Vista also filed a supplement to the Waiver Request:
    Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
    Federal Communications Commission, from E. Ashton Johnston, Esq.,
    dated Dec. 8, 1999 ("Vista Waiver Supplement").

[^12]: *Id*. at 5-7.

[^13]: *Id*. at 7.

[^14]: Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service, 15 FCC Rcd 1497,
    at 1506, 1517 ¶¶ 15, 31 ("*218-219 MHz Restructuring Order*").

[^15]: *Id*. at 1520, ¶ 37.

[^16]: *Id*. at 1520, ¶ 38.

[^17]: *Id*. at 1518, ¶ 33 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110); *see also*
    Letter to J. Jeffrey Craven, Esq., Counsel for IVIDCO, L.L.C., from
    Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division,
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau*,* 16 FCC Rcd 7236 (2001)
    ("*IVIDCO Order*"); Letter to Fred D. Middleton, Jr., President,
    P.A.W., Inc., from Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 16 FCC Rcd
    3473 (2001).

[^18]: *218-219 MHz Restructuring Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 1520, ¶ 38;
    Implementation Procedures for the Report and Order and Memorandum
    Opinion and Order Addressing the 218-219 MHz Services (Formerly
    Known As Interactive Video And Data Services (IVDS)), *Public
    Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd 7329 (WTB 2000) (noting that the Department of
    Justice authorized the reduction of debt owed to the United States
    in accordance with the debt relief provisions of the *218-219 MHz
    Order*) ("*Implementation Public Notice*"); Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau Announces Revised Election Date and Amends
    Eligibility List for 218-219 MHz Service, *Public Notice,* 16 FCC
    Rcd 5937 (2001) ("*Election Public Notice*").

[^19]: *218-219 MHz Restructuring Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 1529, ¶ 54.

[^20]: Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service, Petition for
    Reconsideration and Clarification, submitted by Vista
    Communications, Inc. (Dec. 3, 1999).

[^21]: Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service, *Second Order on
    Reconsideration of the Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 25,020 (2000) ("*Second Order on
    Reconsideration*").

[^22]: *Id*. at 25,031-33, 25,043, ¶¶ 24-29, 50.

[^23]: *Id*.

[^24]: *See*, *e*.*g*., Letter to Elizabeth Michaels, from Rachel Kazan,
    Chief, Auctions Finance and Market Analysis Branch, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, dated January 6, 2000 ("*Vista
    Ineligibility Letter*").

[^25]: *Id*.

[^26]: *Implementation Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd 7329; Frequently Asked
    Questions Regarding the Restructuring Rules for the 218-219 MHz
    Service, *Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd 7305 (2000). The Bureau also
    had previously released a public notice containing preliminary
    implementation procedures on December 28, 1999. Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau Announces Preliminary Implementation
    Procedures for 218-219 MHz Service (Formerly known as Interactive
    Video and Data Service (IVDS)), *Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd 22
    (1998).

[^27]: *Implementation Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd 7329.

[^28]: *Id*.

[^29]: *Election Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 5937.

[^30]: *Vista Communications, Inc. v. FCC*, No. 01-1168 (D.C. Cir, filed
    April 9, 2001).

[^31]: *Vista Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 12,430.

[^32]: *Id*. at 12,433-35.

[^33]: *Id*.

[^34]: *Id*. at 12,433 (citing *218-219 MHz Second Order on
    Reconsideration*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25,032, ¶ 28).

[^35]: *Id.* at 12,434, note 38 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 0.406 "Persons
    having business with the Commission should familiarize themselves
    with those portions of its rules and regulations pertinent to such
    business.").

[^36]: *Id*. at 12,434-35.

[^37]: *Id*.

[^38]: Waiver Request at 7.

[^39]: *Vista Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 12,435 (citing *218-219 MHz Second
    Order on Reconsideration*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25,032, ¶ 27.

[^40]: *Id*. at 12,436.

[^41]: *Id* at 12,436 (citing *218-219 MHz Second Order on
    Reconsideration*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25,033, ¶ 29).

[^42]: *Id*.

[^43]: *Id.* at 12,435 (citing *218-219 MHz Second Order on
    Reconsideration*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25,033, ¶ 29).

[^44]: *218-219 MHz Second Order on Reconsideration*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    25,033, ¶ 29 (cited in *Vista Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 12,436); *see
    also* *IVIDCO Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 7236.

[^45]: *218-219 MHz Second Order on Reconsideration*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    25,033 ¶ 29 (cited in *Vista Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 12,436).

[^46]: *Id*.; 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e)(4)(ii)(1994); *IVDS Grace Period
    PN*, 10 FCC Rcd 10724; *see also* Interactive Video and Data Service
    (IVDS) Licenses, Various Requests by Auction Winners, *Order*, 11
    FCC Rcd 1282, at 1285 ¶ 19 (1995) ("*IVDS Omnibus Order*").

[^47]: *218-219 MHz Second Order on Reconsideration*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    25,033 ¶ 29 (cited in *Vista Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 12,436).

[^48]: *Vista Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 12,436.

[^49]: Vista Communications, Inc., Petition for Reconsideration (filed
    July 12, 2001) ("Petition").

[^50]: ^?^ Petition at 2, 13-14, (citing *BellSouth Corp. v. FCC*, 162
    F.3^rd^ 1215, 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1999); 21^st^ Century Telesis, Inc.,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 25,113 (2000), *aff'd on
    recon*, 16 FCC Rcd 17,257 (2001) ("*21^st^ Century*"), *aff'd,*
    *21^st^ Century Telesis Joint Venture and 21^st^ Century Bidding
    Corporation v. FCC*, No. 01-1435, 2003 WL 203126 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31,
    2003); *WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 413 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
    (government agencies must give waiver requests a "hard look" and not
    a perfunctory denial. The "hard look" requirement assures that a
    general rule serving the public interest for a broad range of
    situations will not be rigidly applied where its application would
    not be in the public interest).

[^51]: Petition at 2-11.

[^52]: Petition at 6; Waiver Request at 7.

[^53]: Petition at 11-13.

[^54]: *Vista Order on Reconsideration*, 18 FCC Rcd 2540, at 2546-49.

[^55]: *Id*. at 2546-47 (citing *218-219 MHz Second Order on
    Reconsideration*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25,031, ¶ 25).

[^56]: Petition at 11; Waiver Request at 7 (citing Mountain Solutions
    Ltd, Inc., Emergency Petition for Waiver of Section 24.711(A)(2) of
    the Commission's Rules regarding Various BTA Markets in the
    Broadband Personal Communications Services (PCS) C Block Auction,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 21,983 (1998) ("*Mountain
    Solutions*"); Carolina PCS I Limited Partnership Request for Waiver
    of Section 24.711(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules Regarding BTA Nos.
    B016, B072, B091, B147, B177, B178, B312, B335, AND B436, Frequency
    Block C, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22938, (1997)
    ("*Carolina PCS*"); Metricom, Inc.'s Request for Waiver of Section
    27. 208(a) of the Commission's Rules for Wireless Communications
    Service Markets: ME30A, ME45A, ME46A, RE01D, RE05C, RE05D, RE06C,
    RE06D, *Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 890 (WTB 1998) ("*Metricom*"); Magnacom
    Wireless, L.L.C. Request for Waiver of Section 24.716(a)(2) of the
    Commission's Rules, *Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 766 (1998) ("*Magnacom*");
    Letter from Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, to Lloyd W. Coward, Esq., Counsel for TE-MCG Consortium, 14
    FCC Rcd 2173 (1999) ("*TE-CMG*"); and Letter from Daniel B.
    Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to Thomas
    Gutierrez, Esq., Counsel for Lancaster Communications, Inc., DA
    98-2052 1998 WL 709412 (1998) ("*Lancaster*")).

[^57]: *Vista Order on Reconsideration* at 2547-48.

[^58]: Southern Communications Systems, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25109-25111, ¶¶ 13-15 (2000) ("*Southern
    Communications*") (distinguishing the analysis of requests for
    waiver of the installment payment rules from requests for waiver of
    the down payment rules in light of the different provisions and
    purposes of those rules).

[^59]: *Vista Order on Reconsideration*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2548 (citing
    *Southern Communications*, 15 FCC Rcd 25103).

[^60]: *Id*. (citing Letter from Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, to Lloyd W. Coward, Esq., Counsel for
    TE-MCG Consortium, 14 FCC Rcd 2173 (1999) ("*TE-CMG*"); Letter from
    Daniel B. Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to
    Thomas Gutierrez, Esq., Counsel for Lancaster Communications, Inc.,
    DA 98-2052 1998 WL 709412 (1998) ("*Lancaster*")).

[^61]: *Id*. The Bureau noted that Vista\'s July 12, 2001 Petition for
    Reconsideration failed to provide any facts in support of
    constructive waiver, but rather took issue with the Commission\'s
    established view of the significance of the constructive waiver
    cases. *Id.* at note 77. Thus, the Bureau concluded that Vista\'s
    attempt to reconstrue those decisions was unavailing and, therefore,
    did not change the Bureau\'s analysis of Vista\'s request for waiver
    of the installment payment rules. *Id*.

[^62]: Application for Review.

[^63]: *Id*., 13-17.

[^64]: *Vista Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 12,435-36; *Vista Order on
    Reconsideration*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2546-48. We also note that it is a
    waste of administrative resources to address arguments regarding the
    equity of a Commission rule through a waiver petition where the
    Commission has already addressed the specific arguments when they
    were raised in a challenge to the adoption of the rule. *See* *Turro
    v. FCC*, 859 F.2d 1498, 1500 (DC Cir. 1988) (upholding the
    Commission's decision to address via rulemaking, rather than through
    individual *ad hoc* waiver proceedings, two questions of policy that
    were virtually identical to each other, one raised by way of a
    waiver request and the other by way of petition for
    reconsideration).

[^65]: *Vista Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 12,435-36 (citing *218-219 MHz
    Second Order on Reconsideration*, 15 FCC Rcd 25,020, at 25,033 ¶
    29).

[^66]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.115.