#  Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

RIG TELEPHONES, INC. D/B/A DATACOM )

)

Petitions for Reconsideration of Commission\'s )

Grant of Datacom\'s Request for Waiver of )

Part 101 of the Commission\'s Rules )

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted: February 28, 2000 Released: March 2, 2000**

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

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1\. On January 19, 1998, Rig Telephones, Inc. d/b/a/ Datacom (Datacom)
filed a request for waiver of Part 101 of the Commission\'s Rules[^1] to
permit it to (1) use channels 10 MHz wide in the 2110-2130/2160-2180 MHz
bands, and (2) transmit common carrier message traffic in the 1850-1990
MHz band, in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf).[^2] On September 1, 1998, an
*Order* was released by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Public
Safety and Private Wireless Division (Division), granting Datacom\'s
request.[^3] We now have before us petitions for reconsideration of the
*Order*. For the reasons set forth below, we grant the petitions for
reconsideration, vacate the *Order*, and deny Datacom\'s request for
waiver.

**II. BACKGROUND**

2\. Datacom is a commercial entity providing telecommunications services
to the oil and gas industry offshore, in the inland water, and on land,
in the Gulf area.[^4] Datacom\'s primary activities are supplying
microwave circuits, radio communications equipment, and Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems for oil, gas, and refinery
applications.[^5]

3\. Datacom requested a waiver of the Rules and modification of its
license for temporary fixed Station KYC56 operating in the Gulf. Datacom
requested use of 10 MHz bandwidth in the previously authorized common
carrier point-to-point microwave frequency bands 2110-2130/2160-2180 MHz
and use of the private operational fixed point-to-point microwave
frequency band 1850-1990 MHz for transmission of common carrier message
traffic.[^6] Datacom asserted that it met the standards for obtaining a
waiver in accordance with Section 101.23 of the Commission\'s Rules.[^7]
With regard to the 2110-2130/2160-2180 MHz bands, Datacom stated that
its current point-to-point facilities in the Gulf were inadequate
because they were limited by regulation to a bandwidth of 3.5 MHz[^8]
and it required at least 10 MHz of bandwidth to satisfy the needs of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).[^9] Datacom acknowledged that the
6 GHz band does provide 10 MHz of bandwidth; however, it contended that
this was not a reasonable alternative because the nature of
transmissions in the Gulf made use of that band ineffective.[^10]
Regarding the 1850-1990 MHz band, Datacom stated that it would need no
more than 20 channel pairs and that common carrier traffic would
comprise only 15 percent of the communications in this band.[^11] It
also stated that since it would make use of the band in the deep Gulf,
there would not be any conflict with PCS systems.[^12] Based on
Datacom's assertions, the Division granted the subject waiver on
September 1, 1998. Specifically, the Division found that Datacom
demonstrated unique circumstances and that there was no reasonable
alternative.[^13]

4\. After the *Order* was released, the Division received various
pleadings fashioned as petitions for clarification,[^14] petitions for
reconsideration,[^15] petitions to deny,[^16] or comments,[^17] all of
which shall be treated herein as petitions for reconsideration, from
entities with various interests associated with telecommunications
services in the Gulf. Specifically, pleadings were received from
Petroleum Communications, Inc. (PetroCom), Shell Offshore Services
Company (Shell), Aerial Communications, Inc. (Aerial), Western PCS BTA I
Corporation (Western PCS), BellSouth Cellular Corporation (BellSouth),
Primeco Personal Communications, L.P. (PrimeCo), and Sprint Spectrum,
L.P. (Sprint). Shell has submitted information contradicting the reasons
provided by Datacom as justification for the waiver and also argues that
entities that obtain spectrum at future auctions (such as for cellular
and CMRS spectrum in the Gulf) will be adversely affected because
Datacom receives the right, at no cost, to carry common carrier
traffic.[^18] Aerial, PrimeCo and BellSouth argue that reconsideration
is essential to address the adverse impact of the *Order* on the
deployment of broadband PCS services in the Gulf, to protect the
existing license rights of broadband PCS licensees who acquired their
licenses at auction, and to preserve opportunities for expedited
deployment of PCS service in the Gulf.[^19] Several parties also take
exception to the fact that the waiver request was not placed on public
notice, thereby denying them an opportunity to comment earlier.[^20]
Still others argue that Datacom's request should not have been
considered until it completed frequency coordination.[^21] Upon
reconsideration of the facts of this case, we conclude that Datacom has
not met the standard for obtaining a waiver of the Commission's Rules,
the *Order* should be vacated, and the *Waiver Request* denied.[^22]

**III. DISCUSSION**

5\. To obtain a waiver an applicant must affirmatively show that (1) the
underlying purpose of the rule will not be served, or would be
frustrated, by its application in the instant case, and that grant of
the waiver would be in the public interest; or (2) the unique or unusual
facts and circumstances of the instant case render application of the
rule inequitable, unduly burdensome, or otherwise contrary to the public
interest or that there are no reasonable alternatives.[^23] As discussed
in greater detail below, we now find that Datacom has failed to make the
requisite showings that grant of a waiver under the circumstances
presented is warranted.

6\. In support of its request concerning the 2110-2130/2160-2150 MHz
band, Datacom stated that it had been contacted by the FAA regarding
provision of long distance circuits to support FAA traffic control
operations in the Gulf and that a bandwidth of at least 10 MHz was
needed to meet the FAA\'s needs.[^24] Datacom stated that it would use
these bands only in extremely remote locations in the deep water of the
Gulf where there is (1) not a significant demand for use of these bands
by other fixed terrestrial users, and (2) little likelihood that the
spectrum will ever be used for (emerging technology) ET systems.[^25]
Datacom also argued that grant of the waiver would enhance safety of
flight and provide increased safety of personnel on offshore
platforms.[^26] Finally, Datacom directed attention to the Commission\'s
prior acknowledgment of the unique circumstances confronting entities
providing reliable communications systems to offshore locations in the
Gulf.[^27]

7\. As for reasonable alternatives available to Datacom, it contended
that none exist. It did nonetheless acknowledge that bandwidth of 10 MHz
is available in the 6 GHz band. However, according to Datacom, that band
is fraught with difficulties which eliminate it as a reasonable
alternative. First, it said that random fading and weather conditions
severely limit the reliability of the 6 GHz band in the Gulf.[^28] While
resolving these problems is possible by shortening the transmission path
length or raising antenna height, Datacom stated that these were not
available options because stations operating in the Gulf must be located
on existing drilling platforms, which are frequently located 10 to 20
miles apart.[^29] Consequently, according to Datacom, it is often
impossible to shorten the length of the transmission path.[^30] Datacom
also argued that there are restrictions against antennas being mounted
higher than heliports located on drilling platforms and that raising the
height of the antenna was therefore not a viable option.[^31]

8\. The *Order* relied heavily on Datacom's representation that it
required 10 MHz channels in order to satisfy the needs of the FAA, and
to assure safety of air travel in the Gulf. However, it now appears that
Datacom may have overstated those facts. Datacom stated in its *Waiver
Request* that the FAA\'s offshore traffic requires twice the 8 T
capacity permissible at 2110-2130/2160-2180 MHz, which can only be
accommodated with a bandwidth of 10 MHz. Shell argues that those needs
were overstated by as much as 97 percent.[^32] Shell has presented
evidence obtained from the FAA which indicates that the FAA\'s
facilities in the Gulf are located on five platforms that require a
total of 13 4 kHz circuits. According to Datacom\'s analysis, it
requires capacity to accommodate 384 4 kHz circuits, an amount far in
excess of what the FAA actually needs.[^33] When presented with this
argument, Datacom appeared to retreat from its prior statement regarding
the need to satisfy FAA requirements to indicate that its request was
motivated by the pressing requirement to build a system capable of
accommodating all essential offshore communications and that there are
other prospective uses for Datacom\'s links in the subject bands.[^34]

9\. The above facts lead us to a finding that the FAA\'s bandwidth
requirements are no greater than those of any other entity in the Gulf,
and the FAA\'s communications needs can be satisfied under the current
bandwidth restrictions for the 2110-2130/2160-2180 MHz bands. Thus, we
conclude that our earlier decision that Datacom had demonstrated unique
or unusual circumstances justifying a waiver is no longer supported by
the information currently before us.

10\. In addition, Shell and Aerial also state that the record does not
justify our previous determinations with respect to the existence of a
reasonable alternative.[^35] As noted above, Datacom acknowledged that
it could obtain its desired bandwidth in the 6 GHz band but contended
that there are numerous problems associated with operation in this
band.[^36] Shell has presented information regarding its experience with
operations in the Gulf. Shell described the operation of its own
extensive 6 GHz system. While it has encountered some difficulties and
has had to rework parts of its system, Shell states that it has an
effective and fully operational 2000-mile common carrier microwave
system operating on 6 GHz frequencies in the Gulf.[^37] While we do not
rely on Shell\'s system alone as proof of a reasonable alternative
available to Datacom, we do believe that it, along with the other cited
systems, are indications that operation of a 6 GHz system in the Gulf is
possible. For instance, Consortium Digital Microwave System operates a
digital 6 GHz microwave system that provides voice and data
communications service for the safe operation of various offshore
platforms in the Gulf.[^38] Also, PrimeCo has relocated offshore 2 GHz
links to 6 GHz while maintaining a high reliability factor.[^39]

11\. Furthermore, in reaching our prior decision we relied on Datacom\'s
statements that certain restrictions were placed upon the height of
antennas on these platforms. As Shell correctly noted, Datacom did not
provide specific citations to specific regulations. In fact, in its
Reply to Shell\'s Petition for Reconsideration, Datacom admits that no
such regulations exist to its knowledge, and then contends that safety
and monetary concerns are the relevant factors when determining the
height of antennas on offshore platforms.[^40] While we do not disagree
that these are relevant factors, we are not persuaded that they alone
eliminate operation in the 6 GHz band as a reasonable alternative.
Accordingly, we find that the 6 GHz band potentially offers Datacom a
reasonable alternative to achieving its desired bandwidth. Moreover,
although it was unsuccessful in acquiring additional spectrum in the
Wireless Communication Service auction,[^41] Datacom is not without
other alternatives. In this regard, we note that Datacom has not
indicated why it cannot make use of the 40 MHz of 2 GHz spectrum for
which it is already licensed, or why other common carrier frequency
reuse techniques are not feasible.[^42]

13\. As to Datacom's request to transmit common carrier message traffic
in the 1850-1990 MHz band, Aerial and BellSouth argue that the
Commission\'s Rules contemplate that continuing uses of the 1850-1990
MHz band will be for the benefit of incumbent private operational fixed
users, not for common carrier operations being established and
particularly not for new common carrier licensees occupying spectrum
after the incumbent private microwave users have been relocated.[^43]
More specifically, Aerial and PrimeCo argue that there is insufficient
evidence showing why use of the 1850-1990 MHz band is necessary
considering the potential availability of a wide range of other 2 GHz
spectrum and why other spectrum for which Datacom holds licenses is
inadequate.[^44] PrimeCo asserts that Datacom\'s proposed use of the
band poses harmful interference and service disruption threats to the
spectrum rights of broadband PCS licensees, that the band is simply not
available for Datacom\'s proposed service, and that the public interest
is not served by the grant of the waiver request.[^45]

14\. Datacom states in its *Waiver Request* that it intends to build a
communications system in the 1850-1990 MHz band to serve the
communications needs of the oil and gas industry in the Gulf.[^46] In
addition to carrying the private internal communications of the oil and
gas industry, Datacom states that it intends to use up 15 percent of the
communications capacity of its 1850-1990 MHz system to transmit cellular
traffic from offshore platforms.[^47]

15\. Datacom presented essentially the same arguments in support of its
waiver request for this band as it did for the 2110-2130/2160-2180 MHz
band. We again find that Datacom has not met the standards for obtaining
a waiver of the Commission\'s Rules, and that our earlier decision that
Datacom had demonstrated unique or unusual circumstances justifying a
waiver is no longer supported by the information currently before us.
While we are aware that Datacom would operate in a status secondary to
the PCS operators and would therefore be obligated to eliminate any
interference its operation would cause, we are concerned that the same
circumstances we have previously addressed relating to communications in
the Gulf could make it difficult to isolate any sources of interference.
Although a grant of the waiver may be in the public interest and
communications in the Gulf present unique circumstances, we are not
persuaded that these factors alone provide an adequate basis upon which
to grant the waiver so long as a reasonable alternative exists. Thus, we
conclude that Datacom\'s showing is insufficient to overcome the high
hurdle a waiver applicant faces.[^48]

16\. We also find that Datacom has not shown how the underlying purpose
of the rule, ensuring the availability of adequate spectrum to
accommodate the needs of OFS and PCS services, will not be served or
would be frustrated by application of Sections 101.101 and 101.603(b) to
its proposal.[^49] In fact, we are concerned that grant of the requested
relief could actually undermine the purpose because Datacom would
receive nearly three times the amount of bandwidth permitted under the
rules. Further, the Commission has specifically excluded the 2 GHz band
from the list of frequencies for which a Private Operational Fixed
Point-to-Point Microwave Service (POFS) licensee can seek a waiver in
order to provide common carrier service on private frequencies.[^50] The
Commission did so because it previously reallocated the 2 GHz band from
private and common carrier fixed microwave services to ET services.[^51]
In this connection, the Commission developed rules designed to relocate
incumbents in these frequencies to other portions of the spectrum in
order to foster the introduction of ET services, including PCS.[^52] The
goals of the 2 GHz licensing rules are not only to limit relocation
costs, but also to clear the 2 GHz spectrum.[^53] Given the
Commission\'s intent in those proceedings, we find that allowing Datacom
to offer common carrier service over frequencies allocated exclusively
for POFS service would frustrate the purpose of the Commission's
Rules.[^54]

16\. For these reasons, we find that Datacom failed to make a sufficient
showing that grant of a waiver is warranted under the circumstances
described. Accordingly, based on the record in this proceeding, we
conclude that a rule waiver is not warranted.

**IV. CONCLUSION**

17\. This *Order* grants the Petitions for Reconsideration filed in this
matter and vacates the *Order* of September 1, 1998. That *Order*, which
granted the request of Datacom to use 10 MHz channels in the
2110-2130/2160-2180 MHz bands in the deep water of the Gulf and
authorized Datacom to modify its license for Station KYC56 to add the
band 1850-1990 MHz for use in the deep water of the Gulf and to use said
band for common carrier service, was based on the conclusion that
Datacom had established unique circumstances and the lack of a
reasonable alternative. Based on the record developed by and in response
to the petitions for reconsideration, we now conclude that Datacom
failed to make the requisite showing that a waiver grant is warranted
under the circumstances presented. Consequently, this *Order on
Reconsideration* denies Datacom\'s *Waiver Request*.

**V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

18\. **IT IS ORDERED** that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections
0.331 and 1.106 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R §§ 0.331, 1.106,
the petitions for reconsideration of the *Order* released September 1,
1998, 13 FCC Rcd 25391, filed by Shell Offshore Services Company,
Petroleum Communications, Inc, Aerial Communications, Inc., Western PAS
BTA I Corporation, BellSouth Cellular Corporation, Primeco Personal
Communications, L.P., and Sprint Spectrum, L.P. **ARE GRANTED**, and the
*Order* released September 1, 1998, 13 FCC Rcd 25391, **IS VACATED**.

19\. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that Datacom\'s request for waiver of
Sections 101.101 and 101.109 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
101.101, 101.109, filed January 19, 1998, **IS DENIED.**

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

D\'wana R. Terry

Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]:     ^?^47 C.F.R. Part 101.

[^2]:     ^?^Datacom Request for Waiver (filed January 19, 1998)
    (*Waiver Request*). Datacom later provided additional information
    and justification regarding the *Waiver Request*. *See* Letter from
    Frederick J. Day, counsel for Datacom, to Robert James, Public
    Safety and Private Wireless Division (filed April 8, 1998) (*Waiver
    Supplement*).

[^3]:     ^?^Rig Telephones, Inc. d/b/a/ Datacom*,* 13 FCC Rcd 25391
    (WTB PSPWD 1998) (*Order*).

[^4]:     ^?^*Id.* at 25391 ¶ 2.

[^5]:     ^?^*Id*.

[^6]:     ^?^*Id.* at 25394 ¶ 10.

[^7]:     ^?^47 C.F.R. § 101.23 (1998). When Datacom submitted its
    *Waiver Request*, former 47 C.F.R. § 101.23 was the applicable
    waiver rule for Part 101 services. The Commission subsequently
    released a *Report and Order* that streamlined and revised the
    Commission\'s Rules governing license procedures for radio services
    licensed by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Biennial
    Regulatory Review \-- Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27,
    80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission\'s Rules to Facilitate
    the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System in the
    Wireless Telecommunications Services, 13 FCC Rcd 21207, WT Docket
    No. 98-20 (1998). Section 101.23 was superseded by 47 C.F.R. §
    1.925, the language of which is, in pertinent part, substantially
    the same as that of former 47 C.F.R. § 101.23.

[^8]:     ^?^*See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.109.

[^9]:     ^?^*Waiver Request* at 4.

[^10]:     ^?^*Id.* at 4-5; *Waiver Supplement* at 2.

[^11]:     ^?^*Waiver Request* at 7.

[^12]:     ^?^*Id.*

[^13]:     ^?^*Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 25393-94 ¶¶ 7-11.

[^14]:     ^?^Petroleum Communications, Inc., filed a Petition for
    Clarification noting that because the 2160-2180 MHz band included in
    Datacom's request overlaps MDS Channel 2 band at 2156-2162 MHz, the
    Commission should clarify that the waiver granted to Datacom is
    subject to any future MDS rulemaking proceedings, including
    Petrocom's pending petition for rulemaking proposing rules for the
    licensing of MDS spectrum on a wide area basis in the Gulf. PetroCom
    seeks further clarification that any expansion of Datacom's PCS-like
    service in the 1850-1990 MHz band will be authorized only upon a
    rulemaking for licensing of such services in the Gulf. PetroCom
    Petition for Clarification (filed September 25, 1999) at 1-2.

[^15]:     ^?^Petition for Reconsideration of Shell Offshore Services
    Company (filed September 30, 1998); Petition for Partial
    Reconsideration of Aerial Communications, Inc. and Western PCS BTA I
    Corporation (filed October 1, 1998).

[^16]:     ^?^Sprint PCS Petition to Deny (filed October 21, 1998);
    Shell Offshore Services Company Petition to Deny (filed October 21,
    1998).

[^17]:     ^?^Comments of Sprint Spectrum, L.P. (filed October 16,
    1998); Primeco Personal Communications, L.P. Comments and Petition
    to Deny Application for Modification of Call Sign KYC56 (filed
    October 16, 1998); Comments of BellSouth in Support of Petitions for
    Reconsideration (filed October 16, 1998).

[^18]:     ^?^Shell Petition at 6-12.

[^19]:     ^?^Aerial Petition at 3; BellSouth Comments at 4-5. The
    interference concerns arise from Datacom's authorization to use the
    entire 140 MHz of spectrum in the 1850-1990 MHz band, albeit only 10
    MHz at any one time and thereby making it difficult to isolate the
    cause of the interference. PrimeCo Comments and Petition to Deny at
    9.

[^20]:     ^?^Aerial Petition at 7-8; BellSouth Comments at 4; PrimeCo
    Comments at 12-15; Sprint Comments at 11-12.

[^21]:     ^?^PrimeCo Comments and Petition to Deny at 16.

[^22]:     ^?^*See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.23 (1998); 47 C.F.R. § 1.925 (1999).

[^23]:     ^?^*See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.23 (1998); 47 C.F.R. § 1.925 (1999).
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has noted that the
    Commission\'s discretion to resolve difficult issues with general
    rules is intimately linked to the existence of a safety valve
    procedure for granting an exemption based on special circumstances.
    *See* *WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969,
    *cert. denied*, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972).

[^24]:     ^?^*Waiver Request* at 4.

[^25]:     ^?^*Id.* at 6.

[^26]:     ^?^*Id.* at 5.

[^27]:     ^?^*Id*. at 3. *See, e.g*., Petroleum Communications, Inc*.*,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 2996 (1997).

[^28]:     ^?^*Id.* at 3.

[^29]:     ^?^*Waiver Supplement* at 2.

[^30]:     ^?^*Id.*

[^31]:     ^?^*Id.*

[^32]:     ^?^Shell Petition at 19.

[^33]:     ^?^*Id.* at 13.

[^34]:     ^?^Datacom Opposition to Petitions for
    Reconsideration/Clarification at 12. Those prospective uses were not
    defined.

[^35]:     ^?^Shell Petition at 22; Aerial Comments at 6.

[^36]:     ^?^In this connection, we are mindful that Shell notes that
    Datacom was only able to cite to two instances of outages in its 6
    GHz system since 1992 which came to a total of 2 hours. Shell
    Petition at 8.

[^37]:     ^?^*Id*. at 2. *See also* Sprint Comments at 14 (suggesting
    that the problem lies with Datacom's equipment, rather than with the
    6 GHz band).

[^38]:     ^?^*See* Consortium Digital Microwave System, 14 FCC Rcd
    4475, 4475 ¶ 2 (WTB PSPWD 1999).

[^39]:     ^?^PrimeCo Comments at 16.

[^40]:     ^?^Datacom Opposition to Petitions for
    Reconsideration/Clarification at 10.

[^41]:     ^?^Auction of Wireless Communication Service (WCS) 23
    Qualified Bidders, *Public Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd 21177 (1997).

[^42]:     ^?^Aerial Petition at 6-7.

[^43]:     ^?^Aerial Petition at 5; BellSouth Comments at 4-5.

[^44]:     ^?^Aerial Petition at 6-7; PrimeCo Comments at 15-16.

[^45]:     ^?^PrimeCo Comments at 6.

[^46]:     ^?^*Waiver Request* at 7.

[^47]:     ^?^*Id.*

[^48]:     ^?^*WAIT Radio*, 418 F.2d at 1157.

[^49]:     ^?^We note that 47 C.F.R. § 101.603(b) generally prohibits
    common carrier operations on private bands.

[^50]:     ^?^*See* 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*, Report and Order*, WT Docket No.
    94-148, 11 FCC Rcd 13449, 13468 ¶ 43 (1996)*, on recon., Memorandum
    Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, FCC
    No. 00-33 (rel. Feb. 14, 2000).

[^51]:     ^?^Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the
    Use of New Telecommunications Technologies*, First Report and Order
    and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, ET Docket No. 92-9, 7 FCC
    Rcd 6886, 6893 ¶ 40 (1992).

[^52]:     ^?^*Id*.

[^53]:     ^?^*See* Duke Power Co., *Order*, DA 99-2574, at ¶ 6 (WTB
    PSPWD rel. Nov. 18, 1999).

[^54]:     ^?^*See* *Cost Sharing First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    8869 ¶ 90 (holding that the microwave relocation rules adopted in ET
    Docket No. 92-9 apply to all emerging technologies services,
    including non-PCS services in the 2110-2150 and 2160-2200 GHz, which
    have not yet been licensed); *see also* Westinghouse Communications
    Services Inc. and Nextel Communications Inc. Requests for Waiver to
    Permit Provision of Common Carrier Service on 2 GHz Private
    Operational Fixed Microwave Service Frequencies, *Order*, DA 00-393
    (WTB PSPWD rel. Feb. 28, 2000).