Opinion ID: 732303
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: amt/dsst

Text: 30 The Commission denied AMT/DSST's preference request for lack of technical feasibility and incompatibility with the spectrum scheme adopted by the Commission. AMT/DSST argue that the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious for several reasons. First, AMT/DSST argue that the Commission deviated from its own announced criteria in rejecting their proposal. According to AMT/DSST, the Commission tentatively denied their proposal on the ground that the proposed technology had not been field tested, contrary to the Commission's stated position that field testing is not a prerequisite to obtaining a pioneer's preference. Pioneer's Preference Order, 6 F.C.C.R. at 3493 p 39. Then, in the Third R&O, the Commission shifted its rationale and denied AMT/DSST's preference request on the ground that the proposal's technical feasibility had not been demonstrated. This shift, AMT/DSST argue, denied them an effective opportunity ... to address the ostensible basis for the denial of their pioneer's preference application. 31 We reject AMT/DSST's argument. As an initial matter, we do not accept the proposition that there was a shift in the Commission's rationale for rejecting AMT/DSST's preference request between the Tentative Decision and the Third R&O. In the Tentative Decision, the Commission tentatively rejected AMT/DSST's proposal because, [w]hile many aspects of [their] proposal appear[ed] to be innovative, the experimental [322 U.S.App.D.C. 275] reports indicate[d] that AMT had just begun initiating preliminary tests ... and that DSST had performed computer simulations and spectrum studies. Neither party appears to have developed 2 GHz PCS technology to the point of field testing. 7 F.C.C.R. at 7807 p 30. While this explanation contains no explicit mention of technical feasibility, the clear implication of the passage is that AMT/DSST's proposal was tentatively rejected because it was still in its early developmental stages, or stated another way, because its technical feasibility had not been demonstrated. Any ambiguity in the Tentative Decision was remedied in the Third R&O when the Commission stated that AMT and DSST ... failed to demonstrate the [proposed] equipment's technical feasibility. 9 F.C.C.R. at 1359 p 166 (emphasis added). 32 Even were we to conclude that there was a shift in the Commission's rationale between the Tentative Decision and the Third R&O, AMT/DSST cannot seriously claim that they were prejudiced by such shift. The Third R&O explicitly placed AMT/DSST on notice that the Commission found that AMT/DSST had not established that their proposal was technically feasible. AMT/DSST had a full and fair opportunity to raise any objections to this conclusion in their petition for reconsideration of the Third R&O. The Commission fully addressed these concerns on reconsideration. Reconsideration Order, 9 F.C.C.R. at 7807 p 13. 33 AMT/DSST further argue that the denial of their preference request was founded on factual errors and was thus arbitrary. Specifically, the Commission concluded that AMT/DSST's proposal was not feasible despite extensive record evidence to the contrary. Apparently, the evidence to which AMT/DSST refers is the technical analysis brought to the Commission's attention in AMT/DSST's petition for reconsideration. That analysis discussed the development of commercial spread spectrum equipment by Cylink, DSST's parent company, for use in the 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.7 GHz Industrial, Scientific, and Medical bands (ISM bands). 34 The Commission did not disregard this evidence. Rather, it found the evidence inconsistent with [AMT/DSST's] previous assertions that they were developing new broadband PCS equipment. Reconsideration Order, 9 F.C.C.R. at 7808 p 14. As the Commission explained, if AMT/DSST's proposed system is based on Cylink's equipment, it does not qualify as an innovation worthy of a broadband PCS pioneer's preference. Id. In other words, the Commission concluded that even if the evidence established the feasibility of AMT/DSST's proposal, the proposal would be rejected because the evidence also demonstrated that AMT/DSST's proposed technology was adapted from technology that Cylink had developed for use in other bands. 35 However, the Commission's adaptation rationale is unsatisfying because, as discussed above, it was not applied consistently to all pioneer's preference applicants. Therefore, we are compelled to conclude that the Commission has failed to respond to record evidence concerning the technical feasibility of AMT/DSST's proposal. We would be troubled by this failure to address record evidence were lack of technical feasibility the sole basis for the Commission's decision to reject AMT/DSST's pioneer's preference application. The Commission, however, also denied AMT/DSST's preference request on the alternative ground that it was incompatible with the spectrum scheme adopted by the Commission. Id. 36 AMT/DSST attack this incompatibility rationale as well, arguing that the Commission granted pioneer's preferences to applicants with equally incompatible proposals. According to AMT/DSST, their preference request was denied because they requested only 5 MHz of spectrum space rather than the full 30 MHz the Commission proposed. By contrast, other parties to these proceedings requested more or less than 30 MHz, yet they received preferences. AMT/DSST's argument is without merit. The Commission awarded preferences to other applicants who proposed spread spectrum systems at varying band widths. AMT/DSST, however, proposed a different type of system altogether--an open architecture spectrum plan. [322 U.S.App.D.C. 276] Id. at 7807 p 8. Given that AMT/DSST proposed a different type of system than other preference applicants, AMT/DSST cannot complain of the disparate treatment they received.