Opinion ID: 496700
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Issue of System Expandability--Issue (b)

Text: 36 In the Phoenix Initial Decision Metro Mobile garnered a moderate preference for its plans for system expansion. See Phoenix Initial Decision at p 83, J.A. at 31. Again, the relative superiority of Metro Mobile's plan rested almost entirely on the perceived deficiency of its competitors' proposals. The judge noted that Gencom proposed to reuse adjacent channels within individual cells and found that such reuse might lead to intrasystem interference and was not entirely consistent with fundamental principles of cellular design technology.... Id. at p 82, J.A. at 31. In addition, he found that although channel borrowing among cells could accommodate Gencom's early expansion needs, satisfaction of later demand would require the construction of new cells, known as cell-splitting. Once cell splitting is necessary, the judge found, time consuming and inefficient reallocation of the borrowed channels to their initial position must occur. This reallocation will likely result in additional costs, service deterioration while changes are being made, and difficulty in expanding to coordinate with adjacent systems.... Id. at p 82, J.A. at 31. In essence, the ALJ believed that Gencom's plan to reallocate voice channels among its cells to satisfy earlier demand growth would lead to later difficulties when new cells were built. 37 The Commission reversed the preference accorded Metro Mobile on this issue. It rejected the ALJ's categorical approach to system design, and reversed his findings to the extent that a particular set of design principles was used to evaluate the nonconforming CMS's and Gencom's system proposals. Phoenix Final Decision, 56 Rad.Reg.2d (P & F) at 1608. 38 However, the Commission explicitly affirmed the ALJ's finding that cell-splits presented an impediment to the Gencom system's future expansion, even absent any comparison with an idealized system design. See Phoenix Final Decision, 56 Rad.Reg.2d (P & F) at 1609. The Commission then balanced this deficiency against Gencom's proposal to build all new facilities one year ahead of demand requirements. Under this analysis the Commission determined that Gencom should receive neither a preference nor a demerit for its expansion plans. Id. Finding all applicants on the same plane, in regard to their abilities to expand their differing systems, the Commission awarded no preference for expansion capabilities. Id. 39