Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | File Nos. 0000946222 and     |
|                                  | *) | 0000946226                   |
| Motient Communications Inc.      | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Request for a Waiver and         | *  |                              |
| Extension of the 800 MHz         | *) |                              |
| Construction Requirements        | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: July 13, 2004 Released: July 14, 2004**

By the Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

# introduction

1.  In this Order, we address the requests by Motient Communications
    Inc. ("Motient") for waiver and extension of time to meet the
    construction requirements for certain of its 800 MHz licenses.[^1]
    In addition, Motient requests that we find that certain of its
    licenses have not "lapsed" due to permanent discontinuance of
    operations and seeks additional time to place these stations in
    operation. For the reasons stated below, we deny the Extension
    Requests and notify Motient that the station licenses at issue have
    terminated and/or canceled automatically.

# background

2.  Motient is the licensee of a number of 800 MHz authorizations,
    including the licenses at issue in the Extension Requests. Pursuant
    to sections 90.155(a) and 90.633(c) of the Commission's rules,
    licensees of conventional 800 MHz systems are required to place
    their authorized stations in operation not later than one year after
    the date of grant of the system license.[^2] In order to be "in
    operation" for purposes of section 90.633, a base station must have
    at least one associated mobile station in operation.[^3]
    Furthermore, section 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission's rules provides
    that an authorization terminates automatically, without specific
    Commission action, if service is permanently discontinued.[^4]
    Similarly, section 90.157 provides that a station license cancels
    automatically upon permanent discontinuance of operations.[^5]
    Section 90.157 defines "permanently discontinued" as any station
    that has not operated for one year or more.[^6] On July 1, 2002,
    Motient filed a request for an extension of time to satisfy its
    construction requirements, seeking an additional three years to
    complete construction for certain 800 MHz licenses.[^7] On August
    13, 2002, Motient amended its Extension Requests to modify its
    proposed construction schedule and to provide supplemental
    information in response to informal inquiries from Commission
    staff.[^8] In this amendment, Motient proposed a multi-phase
    construction schedule for the licenses at issue, with requested
    extensions ranging from one business quarter to three years.[^9]
    Motient also clarified that it was seeking relief from section
    90.157 of the Commission's rules for certain constructed licenses
    that it obtained from a prior licensee and subsequently
    deconstructed upon closing of the assignments.[^10] Finally, on June
    19, 2003, July 31, 2003, and August 6, 2003, Motient provided
    additional clarification and updated information, at the request of
    Commission staff.[^11] In these subsequent filings, Motient noted
    that seven of the licenses that had been included within the scope
    of its Extension Requests were timely constructed and placed in
    operation in accordance with Commission requirements.[^12] In
    addition, Motient sought additional time (beyond that initially
    requested) to complete construction and/or commence operations for
    five of its licenses.[^13]

# discussion

3.  Motient failed to timely satisfy its construction obligations, as
    set forth in section 90.633(d) of the Commission's rules, for
    certain of its 800 MHz licenses.[^14] Pursuant to sections 1.946(c),
    1.955(a)(2), 90.155(a) and 90.633(d) of the Commission's rules,
    absent grant of a waiver or an extension of time, these 800 MHz
    licenses terminated automatically as of their construction deadlines
    because Motient failed to place the authorized stations in operation
    within one year of the license grants.[^15] Motient also
    discontinued operations for certain of its 800 MHz station licenses
    for a period of over one year.[^16] Motient obtained these
    constructed licenses from a third party and discontinued operations
    after closing on their sale.[^17] Motient seeks additional time to
    resume operations at these facilities. Pursuant to sections
    1.955(a)(3) and 90.157 of the Commission's rules, absent grant of a
    waiver, these 800 MHz licenses canceled automatically for permanent
    discontinuance of service.

4.  As discussed below, we find that Motient fails to satisfy the
    criteria for grant of an extension of time or waiver of its
    construction requirements. We similarly find that Motient fails to
    satisfy the criteria for grant of a waiver of the permanent
    discontinuance rules. An extension of time to complete construction
    may be granted, pursuant to section 1.946(e) of the Commission's
    rules, if the licensee shows that the failure to complete
    construction is due to causes beyond its control.[^18] Waiver may be
    granted, pursuant to section 1.925 of the Commission's rules, if the
    petitioner establishes either that: (1) the underlying purpose of
    the rule would not be served or would be frustrated by application
    to the instant case, and that grant of the waiver would be in the
    public interest; or (2) where the petitioner establishes unique or
    unusual factual circumstances, application of the rule would be
    inequitable, unduly burdensome, or contrary to the public interest,
    or the applicant has no reasonable alternative.[^19]

    **A. Extension or Waiver of the Construction Requirements**

5.  Motient argues that grant of an extension of time is warranted
    pursuant to section 1.946(e) of the Commission's rules because its
    failure to construct in a timely manner resulted from circumstances
    beyond its control. Motient advances five arguments to support this
    contention. First, Motient argues that poor economic conditions
    generally, and the downturn in the telecommunications industry
    specifically, resulted in lower demand for Motient's services and a
    reduced need for buildout of licenses.[^20] Motient next argues that
    it has experienced "uncertainty about future operations" in light of
    the proposal initiated by Nextel Communications, Inc.,[^21] to
    relocate certain users of the 800 MHz band in order to accommodate
    public safety users,[^22] and the attendant Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making seeking comment on this possible relocation.[^23] Motient
    expresses concern about the possibility that it might be required to
    relocate and incur related operational and financial costs.[^24]
    Third, Motient explains that, on January 10, 2002, Motient
    Corporation (and its wholly-owned subsidiaries) filed for
    reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Motient
    emerged from bankruptcy on April 26, 2002.[^25] According to
    Motient, it "has had limited financial resources to complete the
    build-out of certain of its 800 MHz licenses" because of this
    bankruptcy.[^26] Fourth, Motient states that it expects to
    experience difficulties obtaining necessary infrastructure equipment
    because its only infrastructure provider "has indicated that it
    intends to leave the messaging infrastructure business."[^27]
    Finally, Motient states that it has experienced tower difficulties
    because "tower owners are shutting down unprofitable sites," thereby
    "forc\[ing\] Motient to focus its internal resources on finding new
    towers to ensure continuity of service for its existing customers"
    rather than on "the build out of new licenses."[^28]

6.  Motient also claims that grant of the Extension Requests will serve
    the public interest because of the number of subscribers Motient
    serves and the fact that "\[o\]nce the telecommunications market
    recovers and Motient is able to find a new infrastructure provider,
    Motient will continue to improve and develop its network in order to
    attract other large customers."[^29] Motient further claims that
    denial of the extension "could jeopardize new customer
    opportunities" for Motient, "or cause existing customers to explore
    alternative service providers."[^30] Motient argues that "denying
    Motient's extension request could result in further delays to the
    buildout of these licenses," because the Commission must find a new
    licensee with "no guarantee" that the new licensee will construct
    the system.[^31]

7.  In the alternative, Motient seeks a waiver of section 1.946(e).
    Motient argues that a waiver of section 1.946(e) is warranted under
    section 1.925 because its circumstances, as described above, are
    unique and could not have been foreseen.[^32] In addition, Motient
    claims that grant of the waiver would "not raise any issues of
    spectrum warehousing because Motient has clearly demonstrated its
    ability to develop and construct its system" based upon its prior
    construction history.[^33] Motient further claims that denial of a
    waiver would not serve the public interest because it would
    "disrupt\[ \] service" to current customers and "hinder\[ \]
    Motient's ability to expand its data network."[^34]

### Motient does not Warrant an Extension Under Section 1.946(e)

8.  We are not persuaded that Motient's failure to construct in a timely
    manner is the result of circumstances outside its control under
    section 1.946(e). As an initial matter, the circumstances that
    Motient relies upon as a basis for relief, such as the Nextel
    Proposal and the economic downturn, are industry-wide circumstances
    that have affected, or have the potential to affect, many
    similarly-situated 800 MHz licensees. The grant of a waiver based
    solely upon factors such as the general economic downturn
    effectively would eliminate the construction requirement; all
    licensees could claim that the economic downturn has impeded their
    ability to build out their systems. We do not believe, as a policy
    matter, that these are the kinds of circumstances that section
    1.946(e) was intended to address. We further note that, across the
    wireless services, licensees have been able to timely construct
    their licensed facilities, notwithstanding similar economic
    conditions. Finally, fluctuations in the state of the economy, or
    even the state of the telecommunications industry specifically, are
    factors that reasonably should be expected in the ordinary course of
    business.

9.  With respect to the Nextel Proposal, we find that it is not the kind
    of circumstance that warrants an extension of time pursuant to
    section 1.946(e). Motient has refrained from constructing its system
    for two years allegedly because of the uncertain possibility that,
    at some undetermined point in the future, the Commission might
    require that it relocate and incur attendant costs. We find that
    Motient's concerns were largely speculative when they were filed and
    not a sufficient justification to waive our rules. Moreover, due to
    the evolving nature of the telecommunications industry, the
    Commission regularly initiates rule making proceedings in order to
    keep pace with changes in technology, consumer needs, and other
    public interests. As a policy matter, it would undermine the
    enforceability of Commission regulations if licensees were relieved
    from complying with current Commission rules on the basis that these
    rules might change in the future or might otherwise be affected by a
    rule making proceeding. Licensees should be familiar with Commission
    procedures and proceedings and should recognize that the Commission
    commonly initiates rule making proceedings that might result in
    modifications to Commission regulations, thereby potentially
    affecting licensees' business plans.[^35] As a regulated entity,
    this is a circumstance that a licensee should reasonably expect
    during the course of its business. In sum, we cannot grant Motient a
    waiver of its construction requirement based upon the potential
    consequences of an undetermined event in the future.

10. Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Motient's financial situation
    provides sufficient basis for grant of an extension under section
    1.946(e). Motient explains that, as a result of its bankruptcy
    reorganization efforts, it "has had limited financial resources to
    complete the build-out of certain of its 800 MHz licenses."[^36]
    Motient states that it "expects to need additional funds to meet
    remaining interest obligations, capital expenditures, and other
    non-operating cash expenses."[^37] Motient has not demonstrated that
    reliance upon its bankruptcy foreclosed its ability to satisfy its
    construction requirements after its reorganization, except to state
    that it had insufficient funding. Section 1.946(e)(2), however,
    specifically excludes lack of financing as grounds for an
    extension.[^38] Furthermore, as we indicated earlier, Motient's
    decision to expend available capital on expenses other than
    construction of the subject licenses is a business decision and not
    a circumstance beyond Motient's control.

11. We similarly are not persuaded that the tower closings provide a
    sufficient basis for grant of an extension of time, based upon the
    circumstances described in the Extension Requests. Motient does not
    indicate that any of the towers that were removed were going to be
    utilized to construct the licenses at issue in the Extension
    Requests; on the contrary, Motient states that "none of the subject
    licenses has been directly affected by tower removals."[^39] Motient
    fails to sufficiently establish the causal relationship between its
    need to allocate resources to find new towers and its inability to
    construct the subject licenses in a timely manner. Likewise, we are
    not persuaded that Motient's decision to direct available resources
    from construction of the subject licenses constitutes anything more
    than a business decision entirely within its control.

12. Motient states that it "expects to have difficulty obtaining a
    sufficient quantity of equipment necessary to fully build out" the
    subject licenses, because its equipment provider "has indicated that
    it intends to leave the messaging infrastructure business."[^40]
    Motient therefore "believes that it may be difficult, if not
    impossible, to find an alternative provider of infrastructure
    equipment" in order to construct the licenses in a timely
    manner.[^41] Motient's argument is speculative and does not
    demonstrate that an alternative has been sought. Motient fails to
    demonstrate a sufficient level of diligence in attempting to
    construct the subject licenses. The fact that an equipment
    manufacturer might cease production of a particular type of
    equipment is a foreseeable business occurrence. As we noted above,
    telecommunications technology is constantly evolving; licensees
    cannot reasonably expect that equipment specifications, or even
    equipment providers, will remain constant.[^42] The circumstances
    presented in this case differ from previous instances in which we
    have granted extensions based upon equipment availability. For
    example, we have granted an extension of the construction
    requirements when licensees have demonstrated a commitment to
    deploying advanced technology that was in the process of being
    developed and therefore unavailable in time to satisfy the
    licensees' construction benchmarks.[^43] Furthermore, those cases
    involved licensees who had placed equipment orders or who had
    otherwise demonstrated a sufficient level of diligence and
    commitment to construction of the licenses.[^44] In this case,
    Motient does not seek an extension based upon the anticipated
    rollout of advanced technology that will provide increased public
    interest benefits to its consumers. Motient also fails to provide
    any evidence that it actually placed equipment orders or otherwise
    attempted to construct its licenses in a timely manner.

### Motient Does Not Warrant a Waiver Under Section 1.925

13. Motient also fails to satisfy the waiver criteria of section 1.925.
    We disagree with Motient's contention that the economic conditions
    and other factors set forth in the Extension Requests constitute
    unique or unforeseeable circumstances. As explained above, economic
    shifts, including industry-specific downturns and their attendant
    consequences, are factors that a licensee reasonably should account
    for in developing its business plan. Furthermore, we are not
    persuaded that grant of its Extension Requests will serve the public
    interest. Although Motient claims that denial of the Extension
    Requests would disrupt service to current customers,[^45] we do not
    find this argument persuasive because the subject licenses are not
    constructed and therefore are not being used to serve existing
    customers. In addition, Motient claims that "\[i\]f the Commission
    denies Motient's request and cancels its licenses, additional
    Commission resources will be necessary to find a new licensee with
    no guarantee that the new licensee will build this system."[^46] We
    similarly are not persuaded by this argument and believe it is in
    the public interest to enforce our construction rules. By enforcing
    our construction requirement, we will make spectrum available to
    those who have a present need for the spectrum, as well as the
    present means to build out the systems. Motient admits that it has
    neither the need nor the resources to build out the subject licenses
    at the present time. Motient states that it "simply does not need to
    deploy as many base stations in its network as quickly as Motient
    initially thought it would need them," and that "\[e\]ach additional
    base station built must be cost-justified, and if a new base station
    is not needed to support subscriber growth, then it is not
    cost-effective for Motient to build the base station."[^47] Motient
    claims that "as economic conditions improve, Motient will need to
    return to its earlier network expansion plans and continue building
    its network."[^48] We believe that it is contrary to the public
    interest to allow Motient to retain these licenses while it waits
    for better economic conditions or opportunities.

    **B. Waiver of the Permanent Discontinuance Rules**

14. In addition to seeking an extension of time to satisfy its initial
    construction obligations for the 800 MHz licenses set forth in
    Appendix 1, Motient seeks additional time to place the 800 MHz
    licenses set forth in Appendix 2 in operation. Based upon the
    information provided in the Extension Requests, Motient acquired
    these constructed licenses from a third party and discontinued
    operations after closing upon the sale of these licenses.[^49]
    Motient consummated the assignments of licenses more than one year
    ago and seeks additional time to reinstitute operations at these
    facilities. Because these stations have not been operated for more
    than one year, absent grant of a waiver of the permanent
    discontinuance rules, these licenses cancelled automatically
    pursuant to sections 1.955(a)(3) and 90.157 of the Commission's
    rules.[^50]

15. We find that Motient fails to satisfy the requirements for a waiver
    of the permanent discontinuance rules. Motient claims "that it would
    not be in the public interest to allow these stations to lapse, with
    the significant price paid by Motient for their purchase --
    particularly given the limited extension of time needed to complete
    construction of these sites."[^51] We disagree. First, Motient does
    not demonstrate how its particular circumstances would satisfy the
    criteria for waiver of the permanent discontinuance rules. Motient
    simply states that these licenses should not be permitted to
    "lapse."[^52] Motient references the price it paid for the licenses
    and the fact that it seeks only a "limited extension."[^53] Neither
    argument is persuasive. We do not consider the amount that Motient
    voluntarily paid for the licenses as a sound basis for granting a
    waiver; nor do we agree that Motient's extension request is limited
    in duration, as Motient seeks up to several additional years to
    reinstate operations at these facilities. Moreover, even considering
    that, at least for one of the licenses, the requested extension of
    time is only several months, we are not persuaded that allowing the
    licenses to "lapse" is contrary to the public interest.[^54] As we
    explained above, we do not believe that Motient's inability to
    construct and operate these facilities in a timely manner results
    from unforeseeable and unique circumstances, nor will grant of a
    waiver serve the public interest. In summary, based upon the record,
    the licenses set forth in Appendix 2 have cancelled automatically
    under sections 1.955(a)(3) and 90.157 for permanent discontinuance
    of operations.

# ORDERING clause

16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 4(i) of the
    Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and sections
    0.331, 1.925, and 1.946 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
    0.331, 1.925, 1.946, that the requests filed by Motient
    Communications Inc. on July 1, 2002, and amended on August 13, 2002,
    July 31, 2003, June 19, 2003, and August 6, 2003, for extension and
    waiver of the 800 MHz construction requirements and waiver of the
    permanent discontinuance rules, ARE HEREBY DENIED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Thomas Derenge

    Deputy Chief, Mobility Division

    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

    ![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.944444444444445e-4in"
    height="6.944444444444445e-4in"}**APPENDIX 1**

    **(Failure to Satisfy Initial Construction Requirement)**

  ------------- ------------------------- ---------------------- ---------
  **Call Sign** **Buildout_Deadline**     **STATE NAME**         **EA**

  WPSQ643       7/12/2002                 Georgia                38

  WPTB950       8/27/2002                 Tennessee              43

  WPTB954       8/27/2002                 Washington             147

  WPTC683       8/29/2002                 Georgia                39

  WPTK786       10/22/2002                California             163

  WPTK801       10/22/2002                California             163

  WPTK916       10/23/2002                Minnesota              106

  WPTL252       10/23/2002                Kentucky               70

  WPTM894       11/2/2002                 Pennsylvania           54

  WPTN892       11/13/2002                California             163
  ------------- ------------------------- ---------------------- ---------

**APPENDIX 2:**

**(Permanent Discontinuance of Operations)**

  ----------------- ------------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **Call Sign**     **Acquired_Date**   **STATE NAME**    **EA**

  WPJT290           2/26/2002           Arkansas          90

  WPMG325           10/5/2001           West Virginia     48

  WPQK862           10/5/2001           New York          6

  WPMX370           10/5/2001           Illinois          68

  WPTB949           10/5/2001           Michigan          57

  WPSQ644           9/29/2001           Indiana           67

  WPTC682           9/29/2001           Indiana           67

  WPUI717           2/23/2002           Alabama           78

  WPIB906           2/23/2002           Alabama           80

  WPSQ640           5/7/2002            Florida           31

  WPTE230           7/12/2001           Georgia           38

  WPHB917           7/12/2001           Georgia           38

  WPHG510           8/27/2001           Tennessee         43

  WPGQ396           8/29/2001           California        163

  WPES898           9/7/2001            New York          5

  WPDA547           3/13/2002           Indiana           65
  ----------------- ------------------- ----------------- -----------------

[^1]: *See* File Nos. 0000946222 and 00009462226, filed July 1, 2002 by
    Motient Communications Inc. and amended on August 13, 2002, June 19,
    2003, July 31, 2003, and August 6, 2003 (collectively, "Extension
    Requests"). With the exception of "Exhibit B," which consists of
    Motient's proposed construction schedule, the attachments to these
    applications are identical. *See* Extension Requests, attachments
    entitled "Exhibit A: Public Interest Statement in Support of Motient
    Communications Inc. Request for Extension of Time to Construct and
    Commence Service," ("Public Interest Statement"); "Exhibit C:
    Description of Amendment Application" ("August 2002 Amendment");
    June 19, 2003 amendment ("June 2003 Amendment"), July 31, 2003
    amendment ("July 2003 Amendment"); and August 6, 2003 amendment
    ("August 2003 Amendment").

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.155(a), 90.633(c). We note, however, that licenses
    subject to an extended implementation period need not be constructed
    within one year. *See* 47. C.F.R § 90.629.

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.633(d).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.955(a)(3).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.157.

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.157.

[^7]: *See* Extension Requests.

[^8]: *See* August 2002 Amendment.

[^9]: *See* August 2002 Amendment; Extension Requests, Exhibit B.

[^10]: *Id.* at 3.

[^11]: *See* August 2002 Amendment.

[^12]: *See* June 2003 Amendment. Motient indicated that the following
    licenses "were built and placed in accordance with FCC requirements
    on or before their original construction deadline": WNQQ748;
    WPTB952; WPTB968; WPTK685; WPTL392; WPEP302; WPHJ359. These licenses
    therefore are excluded from the scope of this order and remain in
    "active" status.

[^13]: *See* August 2003 Amendment.

[^14]: *See* Appendix 1 for a list of the 800 MHz licenses at issue in
    the Extension Requests that have not been timely constructed in
    compliance with original build-out requirements. Appendix 1 also
    contains the construction deadline for these licenses and the state
    where the license is located.

[^15]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.946(c), 1.955(a)(2), 90.155(a), 90.633(d).

[^16]: *See* Amendment at 3; July 2003 Amendment. *See* Appendix 2 for a
    list of the 800 MHz licenses at issue in the Extension Requests that
    have been deconstructed and operations permanently discontinued.
    Appendix 2 also contains the date in which Motient acquired the
    licenses and the state where the license is located.

[^17]: *See* Public Interest Statement at 3.

[^18]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(e). Section 1.946(e) also states specific
    circumstances that would not warrant an extension of time to
    complete construction. 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(e)(2)-(3).

[^19]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.925. Alternatively, pursuant to section 1.3, the
    Commission has authority to waive its rules if there is "good cause"
    to do so. 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. *See also* *Northeast Cellular Telephone
    Co. v. FCC*, 897 F.2d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

[^20]: Public Interest Statement at 2. Motient's service consists of a
    two-way wireless packet data network provide a range of mobile and
    internet communication services principally to business-to-business
    customers and enterprises.

[^21]: *See* "Promoting Public Safety Communications - Realigning the
    800 MHz Land Mobile Radio Band to Rectify Commercial Mobile Radio -
    Public Safety Interference and Allocate Additional Spectrum to Meet
    Critical Public Safety Needs," filed by Nextel Communications, Inc.
    on Nov. 21, 2001 ("Nextel Proposal"). Nextel subsequently
    supplemented its comments and consolidated its comments with those
    of other parties. *See* Supplemental Comments of Aeronautical Radio,
    Inc., the American Mobile Telecommunications Association, the
    American Petroleum Institute, the Association of Public-Safety
    Communications Officials-International, Inc., the Forest Industries
    Telecommunications, the Industrial Telecommunications Association,
    Inc., the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the
    International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc., the International
    Municipal Signal Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association,
    the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the National Sheriffs'
    Association, National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, Nextel
    Communications, Inc., the Personal Communications Industry
    Association, and the Taxicab, Limousine and Paratransit Association,
    WT Docket No. 02-55 (filed Dec. 24, 2002) ("Supplemental Comments").

[^22]: Public Interest Statement at 2-3; *see also* August 2002
    Amendment at 2.

[^23]: *See* Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band,
    Consolidating the 900 MHz Industrial/Land Transportation and
    Business Pool Channels, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 17 FCC Rcd
    4873 (2002) ("*800 MHz NPRM*"); "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
    Seeks Comment on 'Supplemental Comments of the Consensus Parties'
    Filed in the 800 MHz Public Safety Interference Proceeding," *Public
    Notice*, DA 03-19 (rel. Jan. 3, 2003) ("*Notice*"); *Order Extending
    Time for Filing Comments*, DA 03-163 (rel. Jan. 16, 2003).

[^24]: Public Interest Statement at 3.

[^25]: *Id.* at 3-4.

[^26]: *Id.* at 3; *see also* August 2002 Amendment at 2.

[^27]: Public Interest Statement at 4; *see also* August 2002 Amendment
    at 2.

[^28]: Public Interest Statement at 5; *see also* August 2002 Amendment
    at 3.

[^29]: Public Interest Statement at 5.

[^30]: *Id.*

[^31]: *Id.* at 6.

[^32]: *Id.*

[^33]: *Id.*

[^34]: *Id*.

[^35]: As the Commission has stated previously, Commission licensees
    have no vested right to an unchanged regulatory scheme throughout
    their license term. *See* Amendment of Part 1 of Commission's Rules
    -- Competitive Bidding Procedures, *Order on Reconsideration of the
    Third Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, and Fourth Further
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 15 FCC Rcd 15293, 15306 ¶ 22
    (2000).

[^36]: Public Interest Statement at 3. Motient states that "\[t\]he
    Commission has previously held that bankruptcy may be a special
    circumstance that warrants a limited extension of time." *Id.*
    (citing to Petition of Teligent, Inc. for Extension of Time to File
    the Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) Report FCC Form
    502, *Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 14768 (Comm. Carr. Bur. 2001)
    ("*Teligent*"). This case is inapposite. In *Teligent*, the licensee
    was given an additional three months to file a semi-annual report of
    its actual and forecasted number usage, so that Teligent might
    "accurately compile a manual report." *Teligent* at 14769. The
    decision is *Teligent* was premised upon the Commission's interest
    in obtaining accurate information in order to properly monitor the
    use and allocation of numbering resources. *Id.* at 14770. As this
    rationale clearly does not apply to Motient's circumstances, it is
    not a proper basis for grant of an extension of time in this case.

[^37]: August 2002 Amendment at 2.

[^38]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(e)(2).

[^39]: August 2002 Amendment at 3.

[^40]: Public Interest Statement at 4; *see also* August 2002 Amendment
    at 2.

[^41]: Public Interest Statement at 4.

[^42]: *See* Eldorado Communications L.L.C., *Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 24613,
    24618 (Comm. Wir. Div., WTB 2002) (finding that "\[c\]arriers'
    decisions to adopt or discard specific technical standards such as
    TDMA or GSM are reasonably foreseeable occurrences in the
    communications industry, as wireless carriers must modify their
    business plans in order to keep up with evolving technology.")

[^43]: *See* FCI 900, Inc. Expedited Request for 3-Year Extension of 900
    MHz Band Construction Requirements and Neoworld License Holdings,
    Inc. Request for Waiver of the 900 MHz Band Construction
    Requirements and Petition for Declaratory Ruling, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 11072 (Comm. Wir. Div., WTB 2001)
    ("*FCI 900, Inc.*") (granting 900 MHz MTA licensees an extension of
    the construction deadline so that they might deploy advanced digital
    900 MHz systems, where the subject digital voice equipment was not
    commercially available in sufficient quantities in time to meet the
    five-year construction deadline); Leap Wireless International, Inc.,
    Request for Waiver and Extension of Broadband PCS Construction
    Requirements, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 19573
    (Comm. Wir. Div., WTB 2001) ("*Leap Wireless*") (granting extension
    of time so that licensee might deploy "high data rate" wireless
    technology that was not available in time to meet the five year
    construction requirement); Monet Mobile Networks, Inc., Request for
    Waiver and Extension of the Broadband PCS Construction Requirements,
    *Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 6452 ("*Monet Mobile*") (Comm. Wir. Div., WTB
    2002) (granting extension of time so that licensee might deploy
    "high data rate" wireless technology that was not available in time
    to meet the five-year construction requirement); and Warren C.
    Havens, *et al*., Request for Waiver or Extension of the Five-Year
    Construction Requirements for 220 MHz Phase II Licensees,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, DA 04-2100 (adopted July 12, 2004)
    (granting extension of the 5 year construction requirement for 220
    MHz licensees to allow for the use of next-generation digital
    technology in the band).

[^44]: *See FCI 900, Inc.*, 16 FCC Rcd at 11079; *Leap Wireless* at
    19575-76, 19578; *Monet Mobile* at 6454.

[^45]: Public Interest Statement at 6.

[^46]: *Id.* at 6.

[^47]: Public Interest Statement at 6.

[^48]: *Id.*

[^49]: August 2002 Amendment at 3.

[^50]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.955(a)(3), 90.157.

[^51]: August 2002 Amendment at 3.

[^52]: *Id.*

[^53]: *Id.*

[^54]: Motient indicates that the construction deadline for WPQK862 is
    March 29, 2003 and requests an extension until the "Fourth Quarter
    2003" for this particular license. Based upon the information
    provided in the Extension Requests, Motient requests extensions of
    approximately one year or longer for the remaining licenses. *See*
    Extension Requests, Exhibit B. *See also* August 2003 Amendment.