#  Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

ASIA SKYLINK, INC. ) FCC Files Nos. 730216, 730217,

) 736359, and 736414

)

Petition for Revocation and for Other )

Appropriate Relief filed by Western )

Tele-Communications, Inc. )

)

Petition to Deny Applications to Modify )

Stations WPJC996, Aurora, CO )

and WPJC997, Denver, CO )

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: December 20, 1999 Released: December 23, 1999**

By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

Number range level0Number range level1Number range level2Number range
level3Number range level4Number range level5Number range level6Number
range level71. Before us are the following pleadings submitted by
Western Tele-Communications, Inc. (WTCI): (1) a request that the
Commission initiate a proceeding to revoke the licenses of Asia Skylink,
Inc. (ASI) for Private Operational Fixed Microwave Radio Stations
WPJC996, Aurora, Colorado, and WPJC997, Denver, Colorado;[^1] (2) a
petition to deny the above-captioned ASI applications to modify Stations
WPJC996 and WPJC997;[^2] and (3) a complaint that ASI engaged in a
prohibited *ex parte* contact with Commission personnel regarding the
petition to deny.[^3] For the reasons stated herein, we deny all of
WTCI\'s requests, and will grant the above-captioned applications.

#  II. BACKGROUND

2\. On November 17, 1995, Comsearch, which has provided frequency
coordinator services for both WTCI and ASI, initiated frequency
coordination on behalf of ASI for new 6 GHz paths between Aurora and
Denver, Colorado; Aurora and Englewood, Colorado; and Denver and
Eldorado Mountain, Colorado.[^4] WTCI was among the carriers notified in
connection with this frequency coordination, because it operates a 6 GHz
point-to-point microwave radio system that includes a link between
Denver and Russelville (near Aurora), Colorado.[^5] Of the eight pairs
of 30 MHz channels in the 6 MHz band allocated by the Commission for
both private operational-fixed and common carrier point-to-point
microwave service,[^6] WTCI\'s Denver-Russelville link is licensed for
six pairs and WTCI has coordinated the other two as growth channels.[^7]

3\. On November 28, 1995, Comsearch informed WTCI that there was a
possibility that ASI's proposed operations would cause interference to
WTCI\'s growth channels.[^8] By letter dated November 30, 1995, ASI
requested that WTCI relinquish its growth channels.[^9] By letter dated
December 19, 1995, WTCI\'s coordinator at Comsearch advised ASI\'s
frequency coordinator at Comsearch that WTCI \"has future need for
\[its\] growth channels and do\[es\] not wish to relinquish them at this
time. Therefore, we consider the potential interference cases contained
in our letter dated November 28, 1995 to be unresolved.\"[^10]

4\. On January 19, 1996, ASI filed applications for new 6 GHz
point-to-point microwave radio facilities in the Denver area.[^11] The
applications included a statement from Comsearch that there were no
unresolved interference objections.[^12] No objections were
received,[^13] and the applications were granted on March 12, 1996.[^14]
Paths between the Aurora (Station WPJC996) and Denver (Station WPJC997)
facilities are in both directions. In addition, the Aurora facility has
a path to another ASI facility at Englewood, Colorado, and the Denver
facility has a path to an ASI facility at Eldorado Mountain, Colorado.

5\. On October 7, 1996, ASI filed applications to modify the licenses
for Stations WPJC996 and WPJC997 to change the antenna gains, centerline
heights, and signal strengths.[^15] The applications included a
statement from Comsearch that there were no unresolved interference
objections.[^16] On November 14, 1996, WTCI filed a pleading captioned
\"Petition for Revocation and Other Appropriate Relief,\" requesting
that the Commission initiate proceedings to revoke the licenses for
Stations WPJC996 and WPJC997 because ASI\'s applications for those
stations did not comply with the Commission\'s rules regarding prior
frequency coordination.[^17]

6\. On July 14, 1997, ASI requested dismissal of its application to
modify the license for Station WPJC997,[^18] and filed another
application to modify that station to change the antenna polarity and
attenuate the transmitter power in order to reduce interference to
WTCI.[^19] The coordination study included in this application states,
"Western Telecommunications Inc. has not agreed to relinquish this
growth channel. No other channels are assignable in accordance with FCC
interference criteria."[^20] On August 28, 1997, WTCI timely filed a
petition to deny this application, alleging that frequency coordination
was incomplete and the conflicts still were not resolved.[^21]

7\. On September 9, 1997, counsel for ASI spoke via telephone to the
Chief of the Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunication
Bureau,[^22] regarding ASI\'s modification applications and WTCI\'s
petition to deny.[^23] He requested expedited action on the applications
on the grounds that the petition to deny merely repeated arguments WTCI
made in previous filings, which in counsel\'s view the Commission
resolved when it granted ASI\'s original applications.[^24] He also
stated that delay by the Commission in processing the applications
furthered WTCI\'s apparent goal of keeping competitors out of the Denver
market.[^25] On September 22, 1997, WTCI submitted a letter[^26]
objecting to these statements and requesting sanctions pursuant to
Section 1.1216 of the Commission\'s Rules.[^27]

**III. DISCUSSION**

8\. As an initial matter, ASI contends[^28] that WTCI\'s Petition for
Revocation,[^29] based as it is on information in ASI\'s original
applications, is in effect an untimely petition to deny those
applications or a petition for reconsideration of the grant of those
applications,[^30] because it was filed more than thirty days after
public notice of the filing and grant of those applications.[^31] WTCI
replies[^32] that the Petition for Revocation is proper because Section
312(a) of the Communications Act empowers the Commission to revoke a
license in two circumstances relevant to ASI\'s conduct: for false
statements knowingly made by an applicant, and because of conditions
coming to the Commission\'s attention that would warrant refusal to
grant an initial license or permit.[^33] We need not resolve this
dispute for we have reviewed the contentions in the Petition for
Revocation and the Petition to Deny (which raises the same issues), and
we find them to be without merit.

9\. Section 101.103(d)(1) of the Commission\'s Rules provides in
pertinent part, that

Proposed frequency usage must be prior coordinated with existing
licensees, permittees and applicants in the area, and other applicants
with previously filed applications, whose facilities could affect or be
affected by the new proposal in terms of frequency interference on
active channels, applied-for channels, or channels coordinated for
future growth. Coordination must be completed prior to filing an
application for regular authorization, or an amendment to a pending
application, or any major modification to a license. . . . All
applicants and licensees must cooperate fully and make reasonable
efforts to resolve technical problems and conflicts that may inhibit the
most effective and efficient use of the radio spectrum; however, the
party being coordinated with is not obligated to suggest changes or
re-engineer a proposal in cases involving conflicts. Applicants should
make every reasonable effort to avoid blocking the growth of systems as
prior coordinated. . . . In the event that technical problems are not
resolved, an explanation must be submitted with the application.[^34]

WTCI claims that ASI did not complete coordination prior to filing its
applications because WTCI\'s interference cases were left unresolved,
and that ASI failed to include in its applications an explanation of the
unresolved technical problems.[^35] WTCI also claims that ASI made no
reasonable efforts to resolve the conflicts and that ASI failed to make
every reasonable effort to avoid blocking the growth of WTCI\'s systems
as prior coordinated.[^36] Further, WTCI asserts[^37] that ASI did not
make the showing required by Section 101.103(d)(2)(xii), which states,
\"Any frequency reserved by a licensee for future use . . . must be
released for use by another licensee, permittee or applicant upon a
showing by the latter that it requires an additional frequency and
cannot coordinate one that is not reserved for future use.\"[^38]
Finally, WTCI argues[^39] that ASI did not satisfy former Section
94.15(c) of the Commission\'s Rules, to which ASI\'s initial
applications were subject[^40], which required an applicant to select a
frequency band with the assignable bandwidth most consistent with the
proposed communications requirements, and to provide a supplemental
showing of the basis for the frequency band selection and bandwidth
requested, and the proposed schedule for implementation of bandwidth
utilization.[^41]

10\. Having reviewed the entire record in this matter, we conclude that
ASI\'s applications were not deficient. As described above, ASI and WTCI
came to an impasse over the latter's refusal to relinquish its growth
channels. Several of WTCI\'s arguments are based on the premise that the
impasse constituted an unresolved technical problem under the
Commission\'s Rules that left ASI\'s coordination incomplete and should
have been explained in ASI\'s applications. We concur with ASI's
contention, however, that WTCI\'s unwillingness to release its growth
channels was not an unresolved \"technical problem.\"[^42] Thus, we
disagree with WTCI's assertions that ASI\'s coordination or applications
were incomplete.

11\. Moreover, it is not clear what further efforts ASI could have made
to resolve the conflict. ASI states that it purposely designed its
system to use only one of WTCI\'s growth channels, notwithstanding the
fact that this design was to ASI\'s detriment.[^43] ASI claims that it
used the same frequency at its Eldorado Mountain and Aurora sites, at
the risk of increased interference into its own system due to
reflection, solely to avoid using WTCI\'s other growth channels.[^44]
ASI further states that it also chose high-performance antennas to
improve the interference characteristics of its system.[^45]

12\. Notably, WTCI does not refute ASI's contentions and instead
contends that ASI could have made greater efforts to avoid blocking the
growth of WTCI\'s systems by changing the polarity of the signal from
Denver to Aurora or by choosing a frequency in the 11 GHz band.[^46] ASI
argues that WTCI\'s suggestions are not realistic solutions.[^47] It
cites an engineering analysis performed by Comsearch to determine ASI\'s
alternative frequency options.[^48] ASI asserts that this letter
recognizes that whether or not ASI changed the polarity of the Aurora
receive channel, ASI\'s Denver and Aurora receivers would incur
\"major\" interference from WTCI\'s stations, and that ASI could not
change the polarity of the Aurora transmit signal because \"it \[is\]
already cross­pole (best scenario) to \[another of\] WTCI\'s growth
frequenc\[ies\].\"[^49] ASI asserts that if it implemented WTCI\'s
suggestion, its system would be inoperable should WTCI ever decide to
activate one of the growth channels it has claimed for the Russelville
station.[^50] ASI further claims that Comsearch was able to find only
one clear 11 GHz frequency pair that conceivably could meet ASI\'s
needs, and even that channel pair was subject to potential interference
from yet another WTCI transmitter located only 0.1 mile away.[^51] Upon
reviewing the record in this matter, we are not persuaded that WTCI's
suggestions would constitute reasonable efforts to avoid blocking the
growth of its systems.[^52]

13\. In addition, we agree with ASI that Section 101.103(d)(2)(xii) of
the Rules required WTCI to relinquish the channel pair requested by
ASI.[^53] WTCI contends that ASI has shown neither that it requires
WTCI\'s growth channel nor that no other channel is available that is
not reserved for future use.[^54] ASI\'s applications indicate, based on
expected customer demand, an initial baseband loading of 2400 channels
and a 10-year projected baseband channel load of 2400 channels. ASI,
like all licensees, is required to meet the efficiency standards of
Section 101.141 of the Commission\'s Rules.[^55] Under the circumstances
presented, we do not have sufficient reason to doubt that ASI will meet
the standards. In addition, we already have rejected WTCI\'s suggestion
that ASI should have used an available 11 GHz channel, instead. The
Commission\'s \"policy is to protect the future expansion of existing
growth routes *to the extent practicable*.\"[^56] We find that it is not
practicable for WTCI to hold all of its growth channels in light of
ASI\'s more current requirements.

14\. Moreover, when it enacted Section 101.103(d), the Commission
contemplated that growth channels would be for "months," not years.[^57]
The Commission specifically stated that, under this rule, \"any party
needing to hold growth channels for longer than six months must
demonstrate a need for them in the event that another entity is unable
to clear another channel.\"[^58] When ASI filed its applications, WTCI
had been holding its growth channels at its Denver and Russelville
stations for more than six years without offering a justification for
its need for them, other than the statement that it \"does not wish to
relinquish \[them\].\"

15\. Finally, we reject WTCI\'s argument that ASI did not indicate how
selection of 6 GHz channels with 30 MHz assignable bandwidth is
consistent with its communications requirements, as required by former
Section 94.15(c).[^59] WTCI presumes that ASI\'s services are provided
over equivalent 4 kHz, voice-grade channels based on a single 30 MHz
analog radio channel ordinarily accommodating up to 2400 voice-grade
channels.[^60] WTCI then states that ASI\'s need for such expansive
bandwidth over its proposed system has not been established.[^61] We
reject WTCI\'s argument that ASI did not make the showing required by
former Section 94.15(c) for the same reasons we rejected WTCI\'s
argument that ASI did not make the showing required by Section
101.103(d)(2)(xii).[^62]

16\. Therefore, we conclude that WTCI\'s Petitions should be denied.
While we are not persuaded by WTCI\'s arguments, we nonetheless note
that ASI should have cooperated more fully in its endeavors to satisfy
its frequency coordination obligations and we caution it to do so in the
future. It appears that ASI overly relied on its frequency coordinator
and failed to directly provide WTCI with the showing that no other
frequencies were available in the 6 GHz band and state its reasons for
why it needed one of those channels. We also disapprove of WTCI's
apparent attempts to prior-coordinate and reserve all the wider channels
in the 6 GHz band as its growth channels. In the competitive environment
which exists today, frequency spectrum is becoming more scarce,
especially in the lower frequency bands where longer microwave routes
are possible.

17\. ***Ex Parte* Complaint.** WTCI also argues that the statements of
ASI\'s counsel on September 9, 1997, to the Chief of the Private
Wireless Division were an impermissible *ex parte* presentation.[^63] We
disagree. *Ex parte* presentations are communications directed to the
merits or outcome of a proceeding which, if written, are not served on
the parties to the proceeding or, if oral, are not preceded by notice to
the parties and an opportunity for the parties to be present.[^64] An
oral presentation giving reasons, other than the need to resolve
administrative delay, why the proceeding should be resolved is not
treated as an *ex parte* presentation if a summary is promptly filed in
the record and served on the other parties.[^65] While the substance of
ASI's counsel's statements \-- that the matter was deserving of
expedited action because the Commission had already addressed the
issues, and a delay could have the affect of keeping competitors out of
the Denver market \-- were reasons other than the need to resolve
administrative delay why the proceeding should be resolved, ASI\'s
counsel promptly filed a summary with the Commission and served a copy
on WTCI\'s counsel, so the contact is not considered an *ex parte*
presentation under the Commission\'s Rules. Further, contrary to WTCI\'s
suggestion, the fact that ASI made the same points in some of its
pleadings in this proceeding does not convert the statements into
discussions of the merits of the case.[^66] Thus, we find that the
statements of ASI's counsel did not constitute a violation of the
Commission's *ex parte* rules.

**IV. CONCLUSION**

18\. For the reasons stated above, WTCI\'s Petitions are denied.
Specifically, we conclude that ASI met the fundamental requirements of
Section 101.103 of the Commission\'s Rules pertaining to frequency
coordination, and that WTCI does not have a sufficient basis under these
circumstances to retain reservation of all of its prior-coordinated
growth channels.

**V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

19\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i), 309, and
312 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),
309, and 312, and Section 1.939 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
1.939, WTCI\'s Petition for Revocation and for Other Appropriate Relief,
filed on November 14, 1996, and Petition to Deny, filed on August 28,
1997, ARE DENIED, and FCC File Nos. 730217, 736359, and 736414 filed by
Asia Skylink, Inc. will be granted.

20\. IT IF FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.934 of the
Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.934, FCC File No. 730216, filed by
ASI on October 7, 1996, SHALL BE DISMISSED.

21\. This action is taken pursuant to the authority delegated by
Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131,
0.331.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

.

D'wana R. Terry

Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: ^?^*See* WTCI Petition for Revocation and for Other Appropriate
    Relief (filed Nov. 14, 1996) (Petition for Revocation).

[^2]: ^?^WTCI Petition to Deny (filed Aug. 28, 1997) (Petition to Deny).

[^3]: ^?^Letter from John Wells King, counsel for WCTI, to William F.
    Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (dated Sept. 22, 1997) (Ex Parte
    Complaint).

[^4]: ^?^*See* Petition for Revocation at Att. 1.

[^5]: ^?^*Id.* at 3.

[^6]: ^?^*See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(i)(8).

[^7]: ^?^ASI Opposition at 1-2, 4-5. Growth channels are channels that
    licensees coordinate but hold in reserve for future expansion of
    their systems, *i.e.* no application(s) is filed immediately to
    activate the channels. Reorganization and Revision of Parts 1, 2,
    21, and 94 of the Rules to Establish a New Part 101 Governing
    Terrestrial Microwave Fixed Radio Services, WT Docket No. 94-148, 11
    FCC Rcd 13449, 13473 n.102 (1996) (*Part 101 Report and Order*).

[^8]: ^?^*See* Petition for Revocation at Att. 2 (Letter from Andrea F.
    Whitley, Frequency Analyst, Frequency Protection Services of
    Comsearch to Rich Andree, WTCI (Nov. 28, 1995)). Proposed frequency
    usage must be coordinated with existing licensees. 47 C.F.R.
    § 101.103(d)(1). It appears that ASI did not directly provide WTCI
    with a copy of the study Comsearch performed to determine what
    frequencies were available to ASI. It also appears, from the
    evidence in the record, that both parties have heavily relied on
    Comsearch regarding this matter. Thus, we do not believe that ASI\'s
    failure to supply the study directly to WTCI is of major importance
    in resolving this matter because it appears that Comsearch, in
    effect, provided the study to WTCI.

[^9]: ^?^*Id.* at 3.

[^10]: ^?^*Id.* at Att. 3 (Letter from Andrea F. Whitley, Frequency
    Analyst, Comsearch to Scott Brown, Comsearch (Dec. 19, 1995)). The
    next paragraph of the letter states, \"On behalf of our client,
    Western Tele-Communications, Inc., we will have no objections to the
    operation of your proposed system provided it is operated within the
    technical parameters set forth in your coordination notice.\" *Id.*
    WTCI contends that this paragraph was inserted erroneously, and,
    taken as a whole, the letter clearly expresses an objection and
    communicates unresolved cases of potential interference. *Id.* at
    3-4 n.2.

[^11]: ^?^FCC File Nos. 722817 and 722818 (filed January 19, 1996).
    *See* *Public Notice*, Report No. 1834 (rel. Feb. 9, 1996). ASI\'s
    system also includes five other sites, which are not at issue.

[^12]: ^?^*See* Petition for Revocation at Att. 1.

[^13]: ^?^WTCI states that it did not file an objection to a grant of
    the applications because it did not have actual notice of the
    applications. *Id.* at 5. It blames Comsearch for neglecting to
    notify it of the filing of the ASI applications. *Id.* According to
    Comsearch, the failure to notify WTCI of the filing of the ASI
    applications was \"due to a procedural error in our office.\" *Id*.
    at Att. 6 (Letter from David L. Meyer, Manager, Terrestrial
    Microwave Services, Comsearch to Rich Andree, WTCI (Nov. 7, 1996)).

[^14]: ^?^*See Public Notice*, Report No. 1839 (rel. Mar. 15, 1996).

[^15]: ^?^FCC File Nos. 730216 (WPJC997) and 730217 (WPJC996) (filed
    Oct. 7, 1996) (1996 Applications). *See Public Notice*, Report No.
    1907 (rel. Oct. 15, 1996).

[^16]: ^?^*See* 1996 Applications at Supplemental Showing (Memorandum
    from Scott Brown, Comsearch).

[^17]: ^?^Petition for Revocation. ASI filed its opposition on December
    5, 1996. ASI Opposition to Petition for Revocation and for Other
    Appropriate Relief (filed Dec. 5, 1996) (ASI Opposition). WTCI filed
    its reply on December 24, 1996. WTCI Reply to ASI Opposition (filed
    Dec. 24, 1996) (WTCI Reply).

[^18]: ^?^Letter from Joseph A. Godles, counsel for ASI, to Private
    Operational Fixed Radio Services, FCC (dated July 11, 1997). ASI
    also filed an application to modify the path from WPJC996 to
    Englewood. FCC File No. 736414 (filed July 16, 1997). *See Public
    Notice*, Report No. 1949 (rel. Aug. 12, 1997). We read the reference
    in the caption of WTCI\'s Petition to Deny to FCC File No. 730414 to
    refer to FCC File No. 736414. (FCC File No. 730414 was filed by an
    entity other than ASI.) Other than in the caption, however, WTCI
    does not appear to object to this application, which does not
    involve any links or frequencies mentioned in WTCI's petitions.

[^19]: ^?^FCC File No. 736359 at Exh. 1 (filed July 14, 1997). *See
    Public Notice*, Report No. 1949 (rel. Aug. 12, 1997).

[^20]: ^?^*Id*. at Exh. 2.

[^21]: ^?^Petition to Deny. On September 10, 1997, ASI filed its
    opposition to the Petition to Deny. ASI Opposition to Petition to
    Deny (filed Sept. 10, 1997). On September 22, 1997, WTCI filed its
    reply to the ASI Second Opposition. WTCI Reply to ASI Second
    Opposition (filed Sept. 22, 1997).

[^22]: ^?^Pursuant to an internal reorganization of the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, the functions of the Private Wireless
    Division are now administered by the Public Safety and Private
    Wireless Division.

[^23]: ^?^Letter from Henry Goldberg, counsel for Asia Skylink, Inc., to
    William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, (Sept. 10, 1997).

[^24]: ^?^*Id.* at 1.

[^25]: ^?^*Id.*

[^26]: ^?^Ex Parte Complaint.

[^27]: ^?^47 C.F.R. § 1.1216.

[^28]: ^?^*See* ASI Opposition at 3.

[^29]: ^?^The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek
    revocation of a license*. See, e.g.,* Danbury Cellular Telephone
    Company, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 6 FCC Rcd 4186, 4188
    n.2 (CCB Mobile Services Division 1991) (citing Puerto Rican Media
    Action and Educational Council, Inc. v. Educational Broadcasting
    Corp., 51 FCC 2d 1178, 1179 (1973)). Pleadings so captioned are
    treated as informal requests for Commission action. *See* 47 C.F.R.
    § 1.41.

[^30]: ^?^*See* CNA Financial Corp., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 58
    FCC 2d 607, 609 ¶ 6 (1976); Asbury & James TV Cable Service,
    *Decision*, 13 FCC 2d 333, 334 ¶ 3 (1968).

[^31]: ^?^*See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106(f) (petition for reconsideration must
    be filed within 30 days of public notice of final action),
    101.43(a)(4) (petition to deny must be filed within 30 days of
    application appearing on public notice).

[^32]: ^?^WTCI Reply at 6.

[^33]: ^?^47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1), (2).

[^34]: ^?^47 C.F.R. § 101.103(d)(1); *see also* 47 C.F.R. §
    101.103(d)(2)(iv) (\"Every reasonable effort should be made by all
    applicants, permittees and licensees to eliminate all problems and
    conflicts.\"), (vii) (\"All technical problems that come to light
    during coordination must be resolved unless a statement is included
    with the application to the effect that the applicant is unable or
    unwilling to resolve the conflict and briefly the reason
    therefor.\"). The cited language from Section 101.103(d) is
    identical to former Section 21.100(d), which was in effect at the
    time the ASI facilities were coordinated. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    21.100(d) (1995).

[^35]: ^?^WTCI Petition at 7-8.

[^36]: ^?^*Id*. at 7.

[^37]: ^?^*Id*. at 7-8.

[^38]: ^?^47 C.F.R. § 101.103(d)(2)(xii).

[^39]: ^?^WTCI Petition at 12.

[^40]: ^?^See 47 C.F.R. § 101.4(a).

[^41]: ^?^47 C.F.R. § 94.15(c) (1995).

[^42]: ^?^ASI Opposition at 1.

[^43]: ^?^ASI Opposition at 5.

[^44]: ^?^*Id.*

[^45]: ^?^*Id.*

[^46]: ^?^WTCI Petition at 10.

[^47]: ^?^ASI Opposition at 6.

[^48]: ^?^*See* WTCI Petition at Att. 12 (Letter from Anh C. Tran,
    Senior Engineer, Microwave and Satellite Services, Comsearch, to Mr.
    Rich Andrea, WTCI (Nov. 14, 1996)).

[^49]: ^?^ASI Opposition at 6. *See also* WTCI Petition at Att. 12
    (Letter from Anh C. Tran, Senior Engineer, Microwave and Satellite
    Services, Comsearch, to Mr. Rich Andrea, WTCI (Nov. 14, 1996)).

[^50]: ^?^ASI Opposition at 6.

[^51]: ^?^*Id.*

[^52]: ^?^We also note that an existing licensee who is trying to
    protect its growth channels may not dictate what the incoming
    applicant should do, and effectively engineer the new applicant\'s
    system. We believe that the Commission has given clear guidance
    regarding this matter when it discussed frequency and route
    coordination:

    One other point we wish to make clear is that we do not intend, by
    the device of coordination, to give one carrier a veto power over
    another\'s technical proposal. If the problem cannot be resolved, .
    . . \[and\] the objecting carrier deems the matter to be of
    sufficient importance, it may, of course, file a petition to deny or
    an informal objection. In accordance with long-established practice,
    the Commission does not grant any application where it is aware of
    likely interference to any *authorized station*.

    Establishment of Policies and Procedures for Consideration of
    Applications to Provide Specialized Common Carrier Services in the
    Domestic Public Point-to-Point Microwave Radio Service and Proposed
    Amendments to Parts 21, 43, and 61 of the Commission\'s Rules,
    *First Report and Order*, 29 FCC 2d 870, 930-931 ¶132 (1971),
    *aff\'d*, 33 FCC 2d 408 (1972) (*First Report and Order*) (emphasis
    added). We note that growth channels are not \"authorized
    stations.\" Thus, we do not believe that WTCI is entitled to compel
    ASI to go to another frequency band or engineer its facilities so as
    to accommodate WTCI\'s growth channels.

[^53]: ^?^ASI Opposition at 6.

[^54]: ^?^WTCI Reply at 4.

[^55]: ^?^47 U.S.C. § 101.141.

[^56]: ^?^*First Report and Order*, 29 FCC 2d at 931 ¶134 (emphasis
    added).

[^57]: ^?^*Part 101 Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13473 n.101.

[^58]: ^?^*Id.* at 13474 ¶ 66. In this order, the Commission shifted the
    burden to the entity reserving the growth channel, and required the
    holder to make the showing that the channel is still needed if
    another entity needs that channel.

[^59]: ^?^WTCI Petition at 12.

[^60]: ^?^*Id.*

[^61]: ^?^*Id.*

[^62]: ^?^*See supra* ¶ 13.

[^63]: ^?^Ex Parte Complaint at 2.

[^64]: ^?^47 C.F.R. § 1.1202(a), (b).

[^65]: ^?^47 C.F.R. § 1.1204(a)(11).

[^66]: ^?^Ex Parte Complaint at 2.