**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Nextel Communications Inc.'s     | ) |                              |
| Petition for Expedited Action to | * |                              |
| Modify the Auction Design for    | * |                              |
| Auction No. 35, the C and F      |   |                              |
| Block Reauction                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted:** December 14, 2000 **Released:** December 14, 2000

By the Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

# INTRoduction

1.  We have before us a Petition for Expedited Action to Modify the
    Auction Design for Auction No. 35, the C and F Block Reauction
    ("Petition") filed by Nextel Communications, Inc. ("Nextel").[^1]
    Nextel requests that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
    ("Bureau") revise the bidding procedures for Auction No. 35 to allow
    package (combinatorial) bidding.[^2] For the reasons set forth
    below, we deny Nextel's Petition.

# background

2.  On January 12, 2000, the Bureau, pursuant to its delegated
    authority, announced the next auction of C and F block broadband
    Personal Communications Services ("PCS") licenses, Auction No.
    35.[^3] The *January 2000 Public Notice* stated that Auction No. 35
    would include 30 MHz and 15 MHz C block licenses, as well as F block
    licenses (all 10 MHz each), for operation on frequencies for which
    previous licenses had automatically cancelled or had been returned
    to the Commission.[^4] On March 3, 2000, the Bureau released a
    public notice seeking comment on reserve prices or minimum opening
    bids, and the procedures to be used in Auction No. 35.[^5]

3.  The announcement of Auction No. 35 prompted petitions from a number
    of parties, including Nextel, asking that the Commission waive,
    modify, or eliminate its eligibility requirements for participation
    in the auction and make other modifications to the C and F block
    rules.[^6] The Commission sought comment on the issues raised in
    these petitions in a *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*
    ("*Further Notice*"), released on June 7, 2000.[^7] Among the issues
    on which the *Further Notice* sought comment was Nextel's "bulk bid"
    proposal under which the Commission would reconfigure the available
    30 MHz C block licenses into separate 20 MHz and 10 MHz licenses and
    offer the newly created 20 MHz C block licenses and the available 15
    MHz C block licenses together on a bulk bid (i.e., winner-take-all)
    basis.[^8]

4.  In the *C/F Block Sixth Report and Order*, the Commission, modified
    the auction and service rules for C and F block PCS licenses, but
    rejected Nextel's bulk bid proposal, finding that there was no
    support for it in the record.[^9] The Commission stated its concern
    that bulk bidding would unduly favor Nextel to the possible
    exclusion of most other potential applicants.[^10] Instead, the
    Commission left to the Bureau, under its existing delegated
    authority, the final selection of a competitive bidding design and
    methodology for Auction No. 35, including the decision whether to
    implement a combinatorial bidding design for the auction.[^11]

5.  After release of the *C/F Block Sixth Report and Order,* the Bureau
    released a public notice providing a revised list of available
    licenses, and seeking comment on reserve prices or minimum opening
    bids, and procedures to be used in Auction No. 35.[^12] In the
    *Auction No. 35 Comment Public Notice,* the Bureau proposed to use a
    simultaneous multiple round bidding methodology.[^13] Nextel did not
    file comments in response to this public notice, and no party that
    filed comments opposed this bidding methodology.[^14] The Bureau
    subsequently released the *Auction No. 35 Procedures Public Notice*
    on October 5, 2000, in which, *inter alia*, it adopted simultaneous
    multiple round bidding for Auction No. 35.[^15] The *Auction No. 35
    Procedures Public Notice* set the short-form application deadline
    for November 6, 2000 and the commencement of the auction for
    December 12, 2000.[^16]

6.  On November 6, 2000, the same day that Auction No. 35 applicants
    were required to file their short-form applications, Nextel filed
    its Petition seeking to change the Auction No. 35 design to allow
    package bidding.[^17] In its petition, Nextel argues that recently
    announced spectrum swaps by incumbent PCS and cellular licensees
    AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., ("AT&T"), Cingluar Wireless, L.L.C.
    ("Cingular"), Sprint Spectrum, L.P. ("Sprint"), and VoiceStream
    Wireless Corp. ("VoiceStream") in major markets will largely satisfy
    their spectrum needs and allow those incumbents to bid on markets
    critical to new entrants.[^18] Nextel maintains that by such bidding
    the incumbent carriers will frustrate the new entrants' efforts to
    aggregate sufficient spectrum to achieve a national footprint and
    become another nationwide PCS competitor.[^19] Nextel contends that
    the addition of package bidding to Auction No. 35, will eliminate
    the exposure risk faced by a bidder that might win some but not all
    of its desired licenses, and would allow bidders to aggregate
    sufficient spectrum to achieve a national presence.[^20] Nextel also
    argues that modifying the current bidding design for Auction No. 35
    will not significantly delay the auction and will not adversely
    impact the interests of other participants in the auction.[^21]
    AT&T, Cingluar, Sprint, VoiceStream, and Verizon Wireless
    ("Verizon"), each in separate filings, asked the Bureau to either
    dismiss Nextel's Petition as untimely or procedurally defective, or,
    in the alternative, to deny the Petition on substantive
    grounds.[^22]

# Discussion

7.  Most commenters argue that we should dismiss the Petition as an
    untimely request for reconsideration of the *C/F Block Sixth Report
    and Order*. [^23] These commenters contend that the Petition is a
    late filed attempt to seek reconsideration of the Commission's
    decision to reject Nextel's bulk bidding proposal.[^24] We disagree.
    Under Nextel's original bulk bid proposal the Commission would have
    grouped together a number of reconfigured 20 MHz licenses with the
    available 15 MHz C block licenses and made them available to bidders
    solely on an "all-or-nothing" basis. This differs considerably from
    Nextel's current request to allow auction participants to choose
    either to bid on individual licenses or on packages of
    licenses.[^25] Thus, we think Nextel's present package bidding
    proposal, while involving similar elements, is sufficiently
    distinguishable from its original bulk bid proposal that Nextel was
    not barred from advancing the former in a petition other than a
    petition for reconsideration of the *C/F Block Sixth Report and
    Order*.[^26] In addition, while the Commission rejected Nextel's
    original bulk bidding proposal, it left to the Bureau, under its
    existing delegated authority, the final selection of a competitive
    bidding design for Auction No. 35.[^27] Therefore, Nextel's current
    package bidding proposal would not properly have been a petition for
    reconsideration of the *C/F Block Sixth Report and Order*, rather
    Nextel could have made its proposal in response to the Bureau's
    *Auction No. 35 Comment Public Notice.*

8.  Many commenters also argue that we should dismiss Nextel's Petition
    as procedurally defective, because it is actually a request for
    reconsideration of the *Auction No. 35 Procedures Public
    Notice.*[^28] These commenters contend that our rules preclude
    Nextel from seeking a reconsideration of the *Auction No. 35
    Procedures Public Notice* because it did not file initial comments
    or reply comments in response to the *Auction No. 35 Comment Public
    Notice*.[^29] We disagree. Although Nextel did not file comments or
    reply comments in response to the *Auction No. 35 Comment Public
    Notice*, Section 1.106(b)(1) of the Commission's rules permits
    Nextel to file a petition for reconsideration if it "state\[s\] with
    particularity the manner in which the person's interests are
    adversely affected . . . and show\[s\] good reason why it was not
    possible . . . to participate in the earlier stages of the
    proceeding."[^30] Nextel claims that the basis for its Petition is
    several spectrum transactions that were announced by incumbent PCS
    licensees after the close of the comment period for the *Auction No.
    35 Comment Public Notice*. Although, as discussed below, we do not
    believe these transactions constitute circumstances that warrant
    revision of the competitive bidding procedures for Auction No. 35,
    we think that Nextel has shown adequate reason why the issues in its
    Petition were not raised in comments or reply comments responding to
    the *Auction No. 35 Comment Public Notice*.[^31] Accordingly, we
    address the merits of Nextel's Petition below.

9.  Nextel argues that recent spectrum swaps by AT&T, Sprint, Cingular,
    and VoiceStream have allowed those PCS and cellular carriers to
    satisfy their spectrum needs largely outside of Auction No. 35, thus
    permitting them to play "spoiler" by strategically bidding up the
    price of licenses in certain markets to thwart the entry attempts of
    another nationwide PCS competitor. [^32] Nextel therefore advocates
    the use of package bidding and claims that package bidding will
    eliminate the unacceptable risks of winning some but not all of the
    licenses it wants and paying more than the value to them of the
    partial package it wins.[^33] Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon refute
    Nextel's allegation that they will bid in Auction No. 35 for the
    purpose of thwarting entry by a potential competitor.[^34] They
    point out that spectrum swaps and similar transactions are
    commonplace events that should have been anticipated by Nextel.[^35]
    In addition, AT&T and Verizon maintain that the spectrum swaps have
    not met all of the existing carriers' demands for additional
    spectrum, and that such demand will be the basis for bidding
    activity in Auction No. 35. [^36]

10. We agree with the commenters that the spectrum transactions cited by
    Nextel do not warrant revision of the bidding methodology or design
    for Auction No. 35.[^37] Nextel could reasonably have anticipated
    spectrum acquisition in the secondary market, whether through swap,
    sale, merger, or other agreement, and Nextel had the same
    opportunity as the incumbent PCS and cellular carriers to engage in
    similar transactions prior to the auction.[^38] Indeed, we note that
    Nextel has been an active participant in the secondary market in
    acquiring spectrum in the 800 MHz band.[^39] Nextel's concern that
    the recent spectrum swaps by AT&T, Cingular, Sprint, and VoiceStream
    will result in anti-competitive behavior by the incumbent carriers
    in Auction No. 35 is unsubstantiated. We agree with Cingular and
    Sprint that there is just as much likelihood that the subject
    spectrum swaps will reduce demand in the affected markets and lower
    prices, making it less, rather than more, difficult for Nextel to
    acquire the spectrum it desires.[^40]

11. Nextel contends that the Bureau can adopt package bidding for
    Auction No. 35 without significant delay of the auction and without
    harming the interests of other bidders that have a preference for
    individual licenses.[^41] Commenters opposing Nextel's request
    disagree, responding that changing the bidding procedures a short
    time before the auction begins would unfairly disadvantage other
    bidders and would not be in the public interest.[^42] Verizon notes
    that bidders have already expended significant resources to prepare
    for the auction, including many hours to develop bidding strategies
    based on the current set of auction procedures.[^43] We disagree
    with Nextel's assertion that the addition of package bidding would
    cause only insignificant delay. We do not think the public interest
    would be served by implementing package bidding for Auction No. 35
    at this late date.

12. First, as noted, Nextel made its request on the day of the
    short--form application deadline. Before establishing modified
    bidding procedures for Auction No. 35, we would need to delay the
    auction to seek comment on such procedures, and, after establishing
    the procedures, provide bidders with an opportunity to develop new
    bidding strategies and business plans.[^44] We find that imposition
    of such delay on the auction participants, especially after the
    short-form application filing deadline, is not in the public
    interest.

13. Moreover, we disagree with Nextel's contention that package bidding
    can be implemented without impacting the timing of Auction No. 35,
    simply by using procedures patterned on those established for
    Auction No. 31.[^45] The Commission previously sought comment on
    possible ways for bidders to efficiently aggregate licenses in
    Auction No. 35, noting that implementation of combinatorial bidding
    might be impractical for Auction No. 35.[^46] Many of the commenters
    responding to the *Further Notice* agreed that such a design would
    be complex and impractical to implement for this auction,
    particularly in light of the large number of licenses involved.[^47]
    Nextel has also previously recognized that the initial test of
    combinatorial bidding should be made during an auction with only a
    few licenses. In its comments on the bidding procedures to be used
    for the auction of licenses in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands
    (Auction No. 31), Nextel argued that Auction No. 31 is particularly
    suited for the Commission's first use of combinatorial bidding
    because of the small number of licenses available.[^48] Insofar as
    Nextel filed its Petition to seek combinatorial bidding at such a
    late date and given the large number of licenses offered in the
    auction, we continue to believe that our decision not to use package
    bidding for Auction No. 35 is in the public interest.

    **IV. ORDERING CLAUSE**

14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Petition for Expedited Action to
    Modify the Auction Design for Auction No. 35, the C and F Block
    Reauction filed by Nextel Communications, Inc. IS DENIED. This
    action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.331 of
    the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.331.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

> Kathleen O'Brien Ham, Deputy Chief
>
> Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: *See* Petition for Expedited Action to Modify the Auction Design
    for Auction No. 35, the C and F Block Reauction filed by Nextel
    Communications, Inc. (filed November 6, 2000) ("Petition").

[^2]: *Id.* at 1.

[^3]: *See* "Auction of C and F Block Broadband PCS Licenses; Notice of
    Auction Scheduled for July 26, 2000," *Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd
    693 (2000) ("*January 2000 Public Notice")*.

[^4]: *Id.*

[^5]: *See* "C and F Block Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Scheduled for
    July 26, 2000; Comment Sought On Reserve Prices or Minimum Opening
    Bids and Other Auction Procedural Issues," *Public Notice*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 4702 (2000) ("*March 2000 Public Notice"*).

[^6]: *See e.g.*, "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on
    Nextel Communications, Inc.'s Petition Regarding PCS C and F Block
    Spectrum, Extension of Filing Deadline for Comments to SBC
    Communications Inc.'s Request for Waiver, "*Public Notice*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 2104 (2000); "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment
    on SBC Communications Inc.'s Request for Waiver of the Eligibility
    Requirements for Participation in the Upcoming PCS C and F Block
    Auction," *Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd 1953 (2000); "Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau Sets Comment Schedule for Petitions for
    Reconsideration of the Order on Reconsideration of the Fourth Report
    and Order in WT Docket No. 97-82," *Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd 6079
    (2000).

[^7]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Installment
    Payment Financing for Personal Communications Services (PCS)
    Licensees, WT Docket No. 97-82, *Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd 9773 (2000) ("*Further Notice**"***).

[^8]: *Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 9791, ¶¶ 34-35.

[^9]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Installment
    Payment Financing for Person Communications Services (PCS)
    Licensees, WT Docket No. 97-82, *Sixth Report and Order and Order on
    Reconsideration*, FCC 00-313, at ¶ 36 (rel. August 29, 2000)(*inter
    alia*, Auction No. 35 and future C and F block auctions also
    reconfigured 30 MHz C block licenses into three 10 MHz licenses and
    removed eligibility restrictions for some 10 MHz C block licenses,
    all 15 MHz C block licenses, all F block licenses, and all C block
    licenses that were available but unsold in Auction No. 22 or any
    subsequent auctions)("*C/F Block Sixth Report and Order*").

[^10]: *Id.* at ¶ 36.

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *See* "C and F Block Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Schedule for
    November 29, 2000 Rescheduled for December 12, 2000; Revised List of
    Available Licenses; Comment Sought on Reserved Prices or Minimum
    Opening Bids and Other Procedural Issues," *Public Notice*, DA
    00-2038, at 7 (rel. September 6, 2000) ("*Auction No. 35 Comment
    Public Notice*").

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: Comments were filed by AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., BellSouth
    Corporation/SBC Communications, Inc., Verizon Wireless. Reply
    comments were filed by AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., BellSouth
    Corporation/SBC Communications, Inc.

[^15]: *See* "C and F Block Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Schedule for
    December 12, 2000; Notice and Filing Requirements for 422 Licenses
    in the C and F Block Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction, Minimum Opening
    Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedural Issues For Final Auction
    Inventory," *Public Notice*, DA 00-2259, at 9 (rel. October 5, 2000)
    ("*Auction No. 35 Procedures Public Notice")*.

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: *See* Petition. *See also* Nextel Reply Comments and Oppositions
    on the Petition For Expedited Action to Modify the Auction Design
    for Auction No. 35, the C and F Block Reauction (filed November 22,
    2000) ("Reply"). Nextel proposes that the Commission permit bidders
    to assemble packages of their own design, or, in the alternative,
    that the Commission either permit package bidding as adopted for
    Auction No. 31, in which bidders may bid on up to 12 packages, or
    specify a single package that includes one license in all open
    markets. *See* Petition at 10-11 n.28. *See also* Statement of
    Gregory L. Rosston In Support of Petition For Expedited Action To
    Modify The Auction Design For Auction No. 35 at 7 ("Rosston
    Statement").

[^18]: *See* Petition at 1-3, 6-8.

[^19]: *Id.* at 3, 7; Reply at 2-3. *See also* Rosston Statement at 6.
    Footprint" is an industry term of art that refers to the total
    geographic area in which a wireless provider can offer service over
    its own facilities.

[^20]: *See* Petition at 3-5, 7-9; Reply at 5-6. *See also* Rosston
    Statement at 5-7.

[^21]: *See* Petition at 6; Reply at 4. *See also* Rosston Statement at
    7.

[^22]: *See* Comments of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (filed Nov. 15,
    2000)("AT&T Wireless Comments"); Response of Cingular Wireless
    L.L.C. to Nextel's Petition for Expedited Action (filed Nov. 13,
    2000) ("Cingular Comments"); Sprint Spectrum Response to Petition,
    (filed Nov. 16, 2000) ("Sprint PCS Comments"); Comments of
    VoiceStream Wireless Corporation (filed Nov. 21, 2000) ("VoiceStream
    Comments"); Verizon Wireless Opposition to Nextel Petition For
    Expedited Action (filed Nov. 16, 2000) ("Verizon Comments"). Nextel
    filed its reply to these comments on November 22, 2000. *See*
    *supra* note 17.

[^23]: *See* Cingular Comments at 2-3; Sprint PCS Comments at 1-4;
    Verizon Comments at 1-2; VoiceStream Comments at 3-4.

[^24]: *See* Cingular Comments at 2; Sprint PCS Comments at 1-2; Verizon
    Comments at 1-2; VoiceStream Comments at 3; *C/F Block Sixth Report
    and Order* at ¶ 36.

[^25]: *See* Petition at 4 n.9, 6; Reply at 4. *See also* Rosston
    Statement at 7. Nextel proposes that we permit bidders to specify a
    number of packages or, in the alternative, that we pre-select a
    single package of licenses. Because both of these options would
    permit auction participants to bid on individual licenses, both
    options are essentially different from Nextel's bulk bidding
    proposal.

[^26]: *See* Reply at 3-4.

[^27]: *See* *C/F Block Sixth Report and Order* at ¶ 36; Amendment of
    Part 1 of the Commission's Rules --- Competitive Bidding
    Proceeding*, Order*, *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, 12 FCC Rcd 5686, 5697-98, ¶ 16 (1997).

[^28]: *See* Cingular Comments at 2-3; Sprint PCS Comments at 1-4;
    Verizon Comments at 1-2; VoiceStream Comments at 3-4.

[^29]: *See* Cingular Comments at 2-3; Sprint PCS Comments at 3-4;
    Verizon Comments at 2; VoiceStream Comments at 4.

[^30]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1).

[^31]: Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f), petitions for reconsideration
    of the *Auction No. 35 Procedures Public Notice* were due on Nov. 6,
    and Nextel's Petition was filed on this date.

[^32]: *See* Petition at 1-3, 6-8; Reply at 2-3. *See also* Rosston
    Statement at 6.

[^33]: *See* Petition at 3-5, 7-9; Reply at 4. *See also* Rosston
    Statement at 5-7.

[^34]: *See* Sprint PCS Comments at 6; AT&T Wireless Comments at 2;
    Verizon Comments at 3.

[^35]: *See* Sprint PCS Comments at 1, 4-5; Verizon Comments at 2.

[^36]: *See* AT&T Wireless Comments at 2-3; Verizon Comments at 3.

[^37]: As Nextel admits, the parties to the swaps have not identified
    all of the markets included in the transactions. Petition at 2.
    Thus, a decision to revise our bidding procedures as Nextel proposes
    would be based on incomplete information.

[^38]: *See, e.g.*, Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus
    Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and Analysis of
    Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile
    Services, *Fifth Report*, FCC 00-289, (rel. August 18, 2000) at
    10-12, Appendix B-5.

[^39]: On July 28, 1995, Nextel acquired all of Motorola's 800 MHz SMR
    licenses in the continental United States. *See*, Nextel
    Communications, Inc., Form 10-K, Annual Report Pursuant to Section
    13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, For the
    Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1999 at 17, U.S. Securities and
    Exchange Comm'n, Commission File No. 0-19656, *available at*
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/824169/0000950133-00-001264-d1.html.
    Earlier this year, Nextel stated that it might obtain additional
    spectrum from third parties through "negotiated acquisitions" in the
    secondary market. *See*, Nextel Communications, Inc., Form 10-Q,
    Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
    and Exchange Act of 1934, For the Quarterly Period Ended September
    30, 2000 at 23, U.S. Securities and Exchange Comm'n, Commission File
    No. 0-19656, *available at*
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/824169/000095013300004523/w42483e10-q.htm.

[^40]: *See* Cingular Comments at 4; Sprint Comments at 1, 6.

[^41]: *See* Petition at 6, 10; Reply at 4. *See also* Rosston Statement
    at 7. Nextel further maintains that such an auction design change
    could occur quickly if package bidding is patterned directly on the
    rules and procedures the Bureau has established for the auction of
    licenses in the 747 -- 762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands (\"Auction No.
    31"). Petition at 10-12. *See* Auction Of Licenses For The 747 --
    762 and 777-792 MHz Bands Scheduled For September 6, 2000:
    Procedures Implementing Package Bidding For Auction No. 31, Bidder
    Seminar Scheduled For July 24, 2000, *Public Notice*, DA 00-1486,
    (rel. July 3, 2000)("*Auction No. 31 Public Notice*").

[^42]: *See* Cingular Comments at 3-4; Sprint Comments at 4; AT&T
    Comments at 3; Verizon Comments at 3; VoiceStream Comments at 4.

[^43]: Verizon Comments at 3.

[^44]: The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the Commission to
    provide an adequate period for notice and comment on proposed
    auction procedures before their issuance, and to ensure that after
    issuance of auction procedures, potential applicants have a
    sufficient amount of time to develop bidding plans and assess market
    conditions. *See* Section 3002(a)(1)(B)(iv), Balanced Budget Act of
    1997, Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251 (1997) ("Balanced Budget Act");
    47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(E).

[^45]: Nextel's argument ignores the work that would be required to
    adapt the Auction No. 31 software to the bidding procedures for
    Auction No. 35. Our existing package bidding procedures for Auction
    No. 31 would have to be modified for Auction No. 35 to take into
    account the number of licenses available and the specific rules
    applicable to the auction of those licenses. *See* *C/F Block Sixth
    Report and Order* at ¶¶ 17-29. Furthermore, as Verizon has noted,
    package bidding procedures in Auction No. 35 might differ from the
    procedures established in Auction No. 31 because certain licenses
    included in Auction No. 35 may be the subject of Commission or
    judicial proceedings initiated by parties claiming to have
    continuing interests in the licenses. *See* Verizon Comments at 5-6.
    *See also* *Auction No. 35 Procedures Public Notice* at Section
    I.B.4. A package bid is not a bid for a specific license, and thus,
    does not establish the value or price of an individual license in
    the package. Should a decision in a pending proceeding ultimately
    require that a winning bidder surrender only some of the licenses in
    a package, we concur with Verizon that the Commission would have to
    consider how to return payment for specific licenses to the winning
    bidder. *See* Verizon Comments at 5-6. Moreover, such an occurrence
    would have the potential to undo any benefits of package bidding for
    the affected winning bidder.

[^46]: *See* *Further Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at 9785, ¶ 17.

[^47]: *See* *C/F Block Sixth Report and Order* at ¶ 37 ; AT&T Comments
    at 3-4.

[^48]: *See* Comments of Nextel Communications, Inc., DA 00-1975, at 1
    (filed June 9, 2000); Auction of Licenses in the 747-762 and 777-792
    MHz Bands Scheduled for September 6, 2000: Comment Sought on
    Modifying the Simultaneous Multiple Round Auction Design to Allow
    Combinatorial (Package) Bidding, *Public Notice,* DA 00-1075, (rel.
    May 18, 2000).