**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the matter of                 | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Request of GLH Communications,   | ** |                              |
| Inc. for                         |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Temporary Waivers of             | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Installment Payment Deadlines    |    |                              |
| (47 C.F.R. §1.2110(g)(4) and     | *  |                              |
| Debt Collection Rules (47 C.F.R. | *) |                              |
| §1901 et seq.)                   | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**Order**

**Adopted: July 18, 2003 Released: July 18, 2003**

By the Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:

I.  **Introduction**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  This Order responds to the request filed on behalf of GLH
    Communications, Inc. ("GLH") seeking two-year waivers of the
    Commission's installment payment and debt collection rules
    ("Request").[^1] More specifically, GLH requests waivers for two
    years of Section 1.2110(g)(4) and of Sections 1.1901 et seq. of the
    Commission's rules with respect to GLH's obligation to make overdue
    installment payments for six Personal Communication Services (PCS) C
    Block licenses. Pursuant to Section 1.2110(g)(4), if the overdue
    installment payments and applicable late fees are not paid by July
    31, 2003, *i.e.*, within two quarters of their original due date,
    GLH shall be in default, its licenses shall cancel automatically,
    and it will be subject to debt collection procedures.[^2] Sections
    1.1901 et seq. set forth the Commission's debt collection
    procedures.[^3] Concurrently with the Request, GLH filed a separate
    petition with the Commission's Office of the Managing Director
    seeking to compromise GLH's debt ("Petition").[^4] GLH requests the
    two-year waivers to permit consideration of its Petition.[^5] For
    the reasons set forth below, we deny the request for a waiver of
    Section 1.2110(g)(4) and dismiss without prejudice the request for a
    waiver of Sections 1.1901 et seq. as premature.

    **II. Background**

2.  GLH holds six licenses, each of which authorizes GLH to use 15
    megahertz of PCS C Block spectrum in each of six different markets
    in Tennessee and Alabama.[^6] In support of its Request, GLH claims
    that it provides PCS service in each of the six markets and has over
    14,000 rural and low-income customers.[^7]

3.  When it obtained the licenses, GLH assumed the original licensee's
    obligation to make installment payments due for the licenses.[^8]
    The original licensee's obligation to make installment payments, and
    consequently GLH's obligation, is based on the winning bids for the
    licenses in Auction No. 5 and the Commission's rules regarding
    installment payments by small businesses.[^9] GLH states that when
    it assumed the obligation to make installment payments due for the
    licenses, GLH also obtained a secured promissory note (the "Note")
    from Leap Wireless International, Inc., ("Leap"), the former
    licensee's corporate parent.[^10] According to GLH, the Note
    obligated Leap to provide GLH with the money to make future
    installment payments for the licenses and was secured by stock in a
    Leap subsidiary.[^11] Notwithstanding the Note, GLH asserts that
    Leap did not provide \$605,371.04 for the January 31, 2003
    installment payments.[^12] GLH states that the total payment due
    January 31, 2003 consists of \$458,598.06 in payments on the winning
    bids and \$146,718.98 in interest payments.[^13] Leap and its
    subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy protection on April 14, 2003.[^14]
    GLH further claims that it was unable to foreclose on its collateral
    under the Note before the bankruptcy filings by Leap and its
    subsidiaries.[^15]

4.  GLH acknowledges that, pursuant to the Commission's automatic
    cancellation rules, if GLH does not pay the overdue January 31, 2003
    installment payments together with applicable late fees by July 31,
    2003, GLH shall be in default; its six licenses shall cancel
    automatically; and it shall be subject to debt collection
    procedures.[^16] GLH states that, as of the filing of its Request,
    it did not have access to capital or alternative funding to make the
    required payments prior to July 31, 2003.[^17] GLH asserts that the
    bankruptcy filings by Leap and its subsidiaries: make it uncertain
    when GLH will be able to recover the collateral for the Note; may
    reduce the value of the collateral; and make it "uncertain at best"
    whether GLH will be able to collect on any deficiencies from Leap if
    the collateral is insufficient.[^18] GLH asserts that absent relief
    from the Commission it may have no choice but to file for bankruptcy
    protection itself.[^19] Consequently, GLH requests a two-year waiver
    of the Commission's automatic cancellation and debt collection rules
    and asks that the Commission consider the proposals set forth in its
    Petition for compromising its debt.

    **III. Discussion**

5.  To obtain a waiver of the relevant rules, GLH must show either
    that (i) the underlying purpose of the applicable rule would not be
    served, or would be frustrated by application to the instant case,
    and that a grant of the requested waiver would be in the public
    interest; or (ii) that the unique facts and circumstances of the
    particular case render application of the rule inequitable, unduly
    burdensome or otherwise contrary to the public interest, or that the
    applicant has no reasonable alternative.[^20] As discussed below,
    GLH fails to make either showing necessary to support granting a
    waiver.

6.  As an initial matter, GLH's statement that absent relief from the
    Commission, GLH likely will have no choice but to seek relief in
    bankruptcy court has no effect on our consideration of GLH's
    Request.[^21] As discussed below, the automatic cancellation rule
    protects the integrity of the Commission's auction and license
    assignment process. According to GLH, the recent United States
    Supreme Court decision in the *NextWave* case holds that filing for
    bankruptcy prevents the automatic cancellation of a license.[^22]
    Regardless of GLH's argument, waiving the rule in response to a
    licensee's threatened bankruptcy would reduce the rule's
    effectiveness. As the Commission has noted, "in implementing its
    regulatory function, \[the Commission\] is charged with looking at
    the broader public interest" and not "how best to rehabilitate a
    specific debtor and satisfy its creditors' claims pursuant to the
    Bankruptcy Code."[^23] Accordingly, the Commission has concluded
    that to alter a licensee's installment payment obligations because
    the licensee may consider filing for bankruptcy "would harm the
    integrity of the auctions process and encourage licensees to
    threaten litigation in the future."[^24]

    **A. The Automatic Cancellation Rule.**

7.  The "temporary" two-year duration of the requested waiver of the
    automatic cancellation rule does not alter the standard to be
    applied to GLH's Request. The Commission's installment payment rules
    already provide licensees experiencing financial difficulties a
    substantial amount of time within which to pursue private market
    solutions to their financial difficulties.[^25] The Commission
    repeatedly has observed that "\[n\]o matter what deadline we
    establish, it is inevitable that some licensees will seek more time
    to pay."[^26] GLH's Request is therefore subject to the same
    standard as any request for postponement or waiver of the deadline
    established by the automatic cancellation rule.

8.  GLH contends that the Commission should waive its automatic
    cancellation rule so that GLH can continue to provide service to
    more than 14,000 rural and low-income members of the public, without
    filing for bankruptcy, while the Commission considers the proposals
    in GLH's Petition.[^27] GLH asserts that delivery of service to the
    public is the primary goal of the Commission's installment payment
    and automatic cancellation rules.[^28] GLH argues that its existing
    service may be terminated if the requested waivers are denied and,
    therefore, granting the waivers would better serve the public
    interest.[^29]

9.  The Commission's competitive bidding rules, including the automatic
    cancellation rule, serve several statutory objectives enumerated in
    Section 309(j)(3) of the Communications Act, including the rapid
    deployment of services for the benefit of the public, and are not
    limited to assuring simply that the licensee provides service.[^30]
    In designing its auctions, the Commission has determined that
    assigning licenses to the qualified applicant willing to pay the
    most for the license promotes several statutory objectives,
    including the effective deployment of the service most highly valued
    by the public.[^31]

10. The automatic cancellation rule serves a crucial function in the
    competitive bidding process that the Commission uses to assign
    licenses. Precluding winning bidders, or subsequent licensees, from
    keeping the licenses when the winning bids are not paid pursuant to
    the Commission's rules minimizes bidders' incentive to make bids
    that they cannot pay. This, in turn, makes it possible for other
    bidders that will pay their bids to win the licenses through the
    auction. This process protects the integrity of the competitive
    bidding and is essential to a fair and efficient licensing process
    for all participants in the Commission's auction, including both
    those who won licenses and those who did not, which promotes
    economic opportunity and competition in the marketplace.[^32]

11. Moreover, the Commission repeatedly has emphasized that strict
    enforcement of the installment payment rules enhances the integrity
    of the auction and licensing process by ensuring that spectrum is
    awarded to those qualified bidders who value the spectrum most and
    that winning bidders have the necessary financial capacity to build
    out systems and provide service.[^33] GLH asserts that it has
    demonstrated its financial capacity as a licensee by building out a
    system without assuming debt other than that owed to the Commission
    for the licenses and offering service at below-average price to the
    public.[^34] However, the original assignment of the licenses was
    premised on the winning bidder demonstrating the integrity of its
    valuation by paying the amount of the winning bids. Absent the full
    payment of the winning bids, GLH's ability to make some use of the
    licenses cannot protect the integrity of the auction and is
    insufficient to prevent cancellation of the licenses.

12. GLH asserts that the public interest requires waiving the automatic
    cancellation rule because cancellation of its licenses may result in
    termination of the affordable wireless service that GLH provides to
    many of its over 14,000 customers.[^35] However, the Commission has
    determined that the provision of service by itself does not outweigh
    the public interest in preserving auction and licensing integrity
    and, therefore, is insufficient to merit waiver of the automatic
    cancellation rule.[^36] Any interest in a particular licensee
    providing service must be balanced against the larger public
    interest in preserving the integrity and efficiency of the
    Commission's licensing process, as well as the Commission's
    obligation to fairly and consistently enforce its payment rules.
    Moreover, contrary to GLH's argument, applying the automatic
    cancellation rule will not necessarily result in the termination of
    service. The Commission is committed to avoiding unnecessary
    disruptions in service to the public. Pursuant to its rules, the
    Commission has authority on request or *sua sponte* to grant special
    temporary authority ("STA"), which allows a licensee to continue
    providing service after a license cancels or lapses.[^37] In other
    instances, the Commission has granted STAs to licensees affected by
    the automatic cancellation rule.[^38]

13. Turning to the alternative standard for granting a waiver, GLH
    argues that it presents unique facts and circumstances that render
    application of the rule inequitable, unduly burdensome, and contrary
    to the public interest. More specifically, GLH contends that, unlike
    past unsuccessful applicants for a waiver,[^39] it has engaged in
    substantial build-out of its system which would take considerable
    time for a new licensee to replicate; it had a commercially
    reasonable plan to finance both build-out and payments for the
    licenses; substantial payments have been made on its licenses; it
    presents a unique repayment plan in its Petition; and, finally, the
    protection against automatic cancellation provided by bankruptcy, as
    affirmed in Supreme Court's recent *NextWave* decision, renders the
    application of the rule to solvent licensees in GLH's circumstances
    inequitable.[^40] Upon examination, none of these arguments is
    sufficient to merit granting the requested waiver.

14. First, GLH's speculation that automatic cancellation would result in
    a six- or seven-year interruption in service is insufficient to
    justify a waiver. GLH claims that it will take that long after
    automatic cancellation of GLH's licenses for a subsequent licensee
    to obtain a license and build out a system that provides service
    comparable to what GLH offers.[^41] However, given GLH's claim that
    its existing service is breaking even, not taking into account GLH's
    debt to the Commission,[^42] such a delay seems unlikely. A
    subsequent licensee lacking infrastructure might have every
    incentive to obtain use of GLH's infrastructure. Alternatively, a
    subsequent licensee might employ GLH to manage its operation.
    Finally, the Commission has discretion, if it finds it necessary, to
    renew STAs for periods of 180 days.[^43]

15. Second, GLH's claim that it acted reasonably by commercial standards
    ignores Commission precedent which holds that GLH bears the full
    risks of any commercial arrangements it made to pay for its
    licenses.[^44] The Commission repeatedly has held that it "cannot
    take into account the private business arrangements that an
    applicant has made to finance its successful bid."[^45] Moreover,
    "the Commission has been consistent in strictly enforcing this
    standard" with respect to various payment rules, including default
    payments and down payments.[^46] GLH made a business decision to
    operate without assuming any debt other than that owed to the
    Commission and to rely on Leap's Note for payment of the debt owed
    to the Commission for the licenses.[^47] GLH contends that, unlike
    other licensees that have defaulted on installment payments, it had
    in place commercially reasonable arrangements to ensure both the
    build-out and full payment for its licenses.[^48] However
    commercially reasonable GLH's arrangement for Leap to finance
    license installment payments may or may not have been, in light of
    Leap's default and GLH's lack of capital, it has proven
    insufficient. GLH cannot now look to the Commission to relieve it of
    its license obligations, even if GLH were reasonable in failing to
    anticipate the circumstances that have developed.

16. Third, GLH fails to present a persuasive argument that past payments
    on the licenses renders license cancellation inequitable. Even by
    GLH's accounting, GLH still owes slightly over 70 percent of the
    total due under the installment payment plan.[^49] It is not
    inequitable to apply the sanction for not paying winning bids when
    most of the winning bids remain unpaid. GLH's additional contention
    that automatic cancellation imposes a severe forfeiture and past
    payments for the licenses will unjustly enrich the Commission if the
    licenses cancel completely ignores the regulatory purpose of the
    Commission's competitive bidding process. As previously discussed,
    the Commission's competitive bidding process assigns licenses
    pursuant to much broader public interest objectives than simply
    recovering the value of the licenses.

17. Fourth, the fact that GLH's Petition is pending is not grounds for
    granting a waiver of the automatic cancellation rule.[^50] GLH
    argues that it would be inequitable to apply automatic cancellation
    prior to reaching a decision on the Petition, which it claims
    presents a unique repayment plan.[^51] As discussed above, however,
    the Commission can grant STA for GLH to continue operations after
    automatic cancellation while it considers the Petition. Moreover,
    pursuant to the Commission's rules, GLH already has had two quarters
    -- or half a year -- after the initial due date for the installment
    payments to attempt to meet its obligation.[^52] A need for
    additional time, regardless of how GLH might use it, does not
    constitute the type of unique circumstance required to justify a
    waiver.[^53] The Commission has determined that two extra quarters
    after the installment payments are due is sufficient time to allow
    licensees to address unanticipated difficulties in making
    installment payments.[^54]

18. Finally, GLH argues that the Supreme Court's recent *NextWave*
    holding creates an inequitable result by permitting a bankrupt
    licensee to avoid its Commission obligations, or at least automatic
    cancellation, while a licensee offering a proposal to satisfy its
    entire obligation to the Commission without resort to bankruptcy may
    lose its licenses.[^55] This argument ignores the significance of
    bankruptcy -- different treatment based on differing circumstances
    is not inequitable.[^56] Congress\'s decision to grant special,
    favorable treatment to entities in bankruptcy (*e.g.,* automatic
    stay, etc.) provides no sound basis for arguing that entities
    outside bankruptcy should receive similar, favorable treatment.

    **B. The Debt Collection Rules**

19. GLH's request for waiver of the Commission's debt collection rules
    is premature. For reasons discussed above, GLH's request for a
    temporary waiver of the Commission's automatic cancellation rules is
    denied. Nevertheless, GLH's licenses have not yet cancelled and,
    accordingly, the Commission has not yet commenced debt collection
    procedures pursuant to the Commission's debt collection rules. As of
    the filing of its Request, GLH stated that it did not have access to
    capital or alternative funding to make the overdue payments prior to
    the July 31, 2003 automatic cancellation deadline.[^57] If that
    remains the case, GLH might file for bankruptcy before the
    Commission commences debt collection procedures. Alternatively,
    however unlikely it may be, GLH might find some means to satisfy its
    installment payment obligations on a timely basis. These potential
    developments could substantially affect the application of the
    Commission's debt collection rules. Accordingly, we dismiss without
    prejudice GLH's current request for temporary waiver of the
    Commission's debt collection rules as premature.

    **IV. Conclusion and Ordering Clauses**

20. For the reasons set forth above, application of the automatic
    cancellation rule in this case will not frustrate the underlying
    purpose of the rule, is not contrary to the public interest and is
    not inequitable, unduly burdensome, or otherwise contrary to the
    public interest. Furthermore, GLH's request for waiver of the
    Commission's debt collection rules is premature, given the
    likelihood of significant developments before those rules could be
    applied to GLH.

21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Request dated April 16, 2003
    filed on behalf of GLH seeking temporary waiver of the Commission's
    rule governing installment payment deadlines (47 C.F.R.
    §1.2110(g)(4)) is DENIED.

22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request dated April 16, 2003 filed on
    behalf of GLH seeking temporary waiver of the Commission's debt
    collection rules (47 C.F.R. §1.1901 et seq.) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
    PREJUDICE as premature.

23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this ORDER shall be sent to GLH
    and its representatives by certified mail, return receipt requested.

24. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and
    309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
    154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 309(j), under authority delegated
    pursuant to Section 0.331 of the Commission's rules.[^58]

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Margaret Wiener

Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: Request of GLH Communications, Inc. for Temporary Waivers of
    Installment Payment Deadlines (47 C.F.R. §1.2110(g)(4)) and Debt
    Collection Rules (47 C.F.R. §1.1901 et seq.), dated April 16, 2003
    ("Request").

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. §1.2110(g)(4)(iv). Pursuant to Section 1.2110(g)(4)(iv),
    GLH has two quarters following the original payment due date during
    which it may make the overdue payments with the applicable late
    fees. *See id.*

[^3]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §1.901 et seq.

[^4]: Petition of GLH Communications, Inc. for Debt Compromise (31
    C.F.R. §902 et seq.), dated April 16, 2003 ("Petition"). GLH filed
    the Petition with the Commission's Office of the Managing Director
    and it will be addressed separately from the instant Order.

[^5]: Request at ii-iii.

[^6]: GLH identifies the following BTAs as the relevant markets: 96,
    120, 146, 211, 229, and 295. *See* Request at 2.

[^7]: Request at 1-2. According to GLH, it offers its customers wireless
    service for unlimited local calling for \$29.95 per month. Request
    at 2-3.

[^8]: *Id.* at 4.

[^9]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g) (regarding installment payments). The
    Commission conducted competitive bidding for licenses authorizing
    use of C Block Spectrum in the relevant markets in Auction No. 5.
    The winning Auction No. 5 bidder for the relevant licenses was Chase
    Telecommunications, L.P. ("Chase"). Entrepreneurs' C Block Auction
    Closes, *Public Notice*, DA 96-716 (rel. May 8, 1996). Pursuant to
    Commission rules for Auction No. 5, Chase received a 25 percent
    discount on its gross high bids and was eligible to pay 90 percent
    of its net high bids in installments over ten years, paying only
    interest for six years and then principal and interest for four
    years. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§24.711 and 24.712**.** Following Auction
    No. 5, a wide variety of C Block licensees encountered difficulty
    making installment payments. To comply with the Commission's
    statutory mandate to promote dissemination of licenses among a wide
    variety of licensees, the Commission decided to offer C Block
    licensees four options to restructure their debt, including an
    option to disaggregate licenses so that the licensee retained use of
    15 megahertz of the spectrum, returned use of 15 megahertz to the
    Commission, and reduced the original principal the licensee owed the
    Commission by 50 percent. *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules
    Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal Communications
    Services (PCS) Licenses, WT Docket No. 97-82, *Second Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 12 FCC Rcd 16,436
    (1997); *on reconsideration*, *Order on Reconsideration of the
    Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 8345 (1998). Chase elected to
    exercise the option to disaggregate its licenses. *See* Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau Announces Broadband Personal
    Communications Services C Block Elections, DA 98-1168, *Public
    Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd 16,705 (1998). Consequently, the current
    licenses authorize GLH to use 15 megahertz even though Chase's
    original licenses authorized use of 30 megahertz.

[^10]: Request at 4-5.

[^11]: *Id.* at 5.

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

[^13]: *Id.* at 4.

[^14]: *Id.* at 5.

[^15]: *Id.* at 5.

[^16]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(iv); Request at 6.

[^17]: Request at 6.

[^18]: *Id.* at 5.

[^19]: *Id.* at 7.

[^20]: 47 C.F.R. §1.925.

[^21]: Request at 7.

[^22]: *Id.* at 13 (discussing *NextWave*).

[^23]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Installment
    Payment Financing for Personal Communications Services (PCS)
    Licenses, Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules --
    Competitive Bidding Procedures, WT Docket No. 97-82, *Second Order
    on Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 6571,
    6580, ¶ 14 (1999).

[^24]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Installment
    Payment Financing for Personal Communications Services (PCS)
    Licenses, Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules --
    Competitive Bidding Procedures, WT Docket No. 97-82, *Second Order
    on Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 6571,
    6580, ¶ 16 (1999).

[^25]: Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules -- Competitive
    Bidding Procedures, Allocation of Spectrum Below 5 GHz Transferred
    from Federal Government Use, 4660-4685 MHz, WT Docket 97-82, *Third
    Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,*
    13 FCC Rcd 374, 439-440, ¶ 110 (1997) ("*Part 1 Third Report and
    Order*"); *see also* Southern Communications Systems, Inc. Request
    for Limited Rule Waiver to Comply with PCS Installment Payment for C
    Block Licenses in the Cleveland, TN BTA, *Memorandum Opinion &
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 25,103, 25,110, ¶ 15 (2000) ("*Southern
    Communications MO&O*"), *further reconsideration denied, Second
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 18,357 (2001); Letter to
    Messrs. Stephen Diaz Gavin and Paul C. Besozzi, Counsel for U.S.
    Telemetry Corporation, from Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and
    Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, DA
    02-819, 17 FCC Rcd 6442, 6446 (2002) ("*U.S. Telemetry Corporation
    Letter*").

[^26]: Requests for Extension of the Commission's Initial
    Non-Delinquency Period for C and F Block Installment Payments, WT
    Docket No. 97-82, *Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 22,071, 22,072-73, ¶ 4 (1998)
    (quoting Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Installment
    Payment Financing for Personal Communications Services (PCS)
    Licenses, WT Docket No. 97-82, *Order on Reconsideration of the
    Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 8345, 8354, ¶ 24 (1998)).
    *See*, *e.g.*, *Southern Communications MO&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25,110,
    ¶ 15, Letter to Mr. Kurt Schueler, President of New England Mobile
    Communications, Inc. from Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and
    Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 16
    FCC Rcd 19,355, 19,357-58 (2001) ("*New England Mobile Letter*").

[^27]: Request at 14.

[^28]: *Id.* at 9.

[^29]: *Id.* at 3.

[^30]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §309(j)(3).

[^31]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, *Second Report and
    Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2360-61, ¶ 70 (1994) ("*Competitive Bidding
    Second Report and Order*"). The Commission assigns licenses based on
    license applicants' competing bids. Each of those bids presumably
    reflects the estimated value of the prospective service to the
    public and the applicant's effectiveness in providing it. *See id.*,
    9 FCC Rcd at 2360-61, ¶ 70 ("\[T\]he market value assigned to
    licenses via the auction process can be expected to reflect the
    benefits to both consumers and producers, now and in the future.")
    Moreover, assigning licenses based on competing bids reduces
    administrative and judicial delay by using a simple and objective
    standard to compare competing applicants.

[^32]: *See* Licenses of 21st Century Telesis, Inc. for Facilities in
    the Broadband Personal Communications Services, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 25,113, 25,123-24, ¶ 22 (2000) ("*21^st^
    Century MO&O*"), *aff'd* 21st Century Telesis Joint Venture and 21st
    Century Bidding Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission,
    318 F3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

[^33]: *Southern Communications MO&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25,110-11, ¶ 15;
    *21st Century MO&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25,117-18, ¶ 10. *See also*
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Will Strictly Enforce Default
    Payment Rules; Bureau to Re-Auction Licenses Quickly, *Public
    Notice*, 11 FCC Rcd 10,853 (1996). "Allowing bidders to adjust their
    bids post-auction would encourage insincere bidding and therefore
    interfere with the Commission's goal to ensure that licenses are
    auctioned to those parties that value them the most and have the
    financial qualifications necessary to construct operational systems
    and provide service." Letter to James A. Stenger, Esq., Counsel for
    Allen Leeds, from Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 16 FCC Rcd
    17,621, 17,623 (2001) (citing Application for Assignment of
    Broadband PCS Licenses, FCC 98-301, *Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 1126, ¶ 1
    (1998)).

[^34]: Request at 2-3, 10-12.

[^35]: *Id.* at 3.

[^36]: The Commission previously has denied requests for extension of
    payment deadlines notwithstanding the provision of service by
    licensees. *See* Request for Extensions of the Commission's Initial
    Non-Delinquency Period for C and F Block Installment Payments,
    *Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 22,071, 22,077 (1998) (discussing service
    provided by two licensees denied waivers of the installment payment
    and automatic cancellation rules).

[^37]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.931(a); Pinpoint Wireless, Inc. Request for
    Waiver and Extension of the Broadband PCS Construction Requirements,
    DA 03-443, *Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 1904, 1910 (2003) (denying requested
    waiver and *sua sponte* granting STA).

[^38]: *See, e.g.,* MBO Wireless, Inc. Requests for Extension of Special
    Temporary Authority to Operate PCS F Block License KNLF925, BTA311,
    Muskogee, Oklahoma and PCS C Block License KNLF591, BTA433
    Stillwater, Oklahoma, DA 02-1428, *Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 11,257 (2002)
    ("*MBO STA Order*").

[^39]: Although GLH argues its facts and circumstances differ from past
    cases where the Commission has declined to waive the automatic
    cancellation rules, we find that GLH cannot satisfy the standard for
    receiving a waiver simply by drawing distinctions between its
    circumstances and the circumstances of other licensees that have
    been denied waivers. Rather, any such distinctions must demonstrate
    that application of the rule to GLH would be inequitable, unduly
    burdensome, or otherwise contrary to the public interest.

[^40]: Request at 10-13.

[^41]: *Id.* at 10. For reasons discussed above, the fact that GLH has
    built-out its system and is providing service does not demonstrate
    by itself that application of the rule is contrary to the public
    interest.

[^42]: *Id.* at 3.

[^43]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.931(a).

[^44]: *See Southern Communications MO&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25107, ¶ 10
    (holding that a failure to appropriately manage business
    arrangements does not justify waiver of the automatic cancellation
    rule); *U.S. Telemetry Corporation Letter*, 17 FCC Rcd at 6447.

[^45]: BDPCS, Inc. BTA Nos. B008, B036, B055, B089, B110, B133, B149,
    B261, B298, B331, B347, B358, B391, B395, B407, B413, and B447,
    Frequency Block C, FCC 00-243, *Memorandum Opinion and* Order, 15
    FCC Rcd 17,590, 17,606, ¶ 30 (2000) ("*BDPCS MO&O"*) (quoting BDPCS,
    Inc., Emergency Petition for Waiver of Section 24.711(a)(2) of the
    Commission\'s Rules, *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd
    3230, 3235, ¶ 8 (1997); Requests for Waivers in the First Auction of
    594 Interactive Video and Data Service Licenses, *Order*, 9 FCC Rcd
    6384, 6385 (CAB 1994) (\"*IVDS Waiver Order*\"), *review denied*, 10
    FCC Rcd 12,153, 12,155 (1995), *recon. denied*, 11 FCC Rcd 8211,
    8216-17 (1996)).

[^46]: *Id.* (involving default payments) (citing Requests for Waivers
    in the First Auction of Interactive Video and Data Service (IVDS)
    Licenses, *Memorandum Opinion & Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 12,153, 12,155
    (1995), *recon. denied*, 11 FCC Rcd 8211, 8216-17 (1996) (involving
    down payments)).

[^47]: Request at 2-3.

[^48]: *Id.* at 11-12.

[^49]: *Id.* at 6.

[^50]: The Petition was filed with the Commission's Office of the
    Managing Director and remains pending. *See* n.4, *supra.*

[^51]: Request at 12.

[^52]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §1.2110(g)(4).

[^53]: *See, e.g.*, *Southern Communications MO&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    25,111, ¶ 15.

[^54]: *See* *Part 1 Third Report and Order,* 13 FCC Rcd 374, 439-440, ¶
    110.

[^55]: Request at 13.

[^56]: It is not inequitable to hold GLH to its obligations even if
    Leap's bankruptcy protects Leap from all of its obligations. Though
    GLH asserts its obligations "stem from Leap's uncured defaults to
    GLH," Request at 11, GLH's obligations actually stem from its
    acquisition of the licenses and assumption of the obligation to make
    future installment payments, *id.* at 4.

[^57]: Request at 6.

[^58]: 47 C.F.R. § 0.331.