Opinion ID: 431653
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Alaska Policy Issue

Text: 34 Closely related to the rural impact issue is Alascom's challenge of the FCC's refusal to exclude Alaska from the purview of the DTS proceedings. Because of the extraordinarily high cost of providing service to Native American villages scattered throughout the state's sparsely populated bush regions, Alascom is heavily dependent upon revenues obtained through the settlement process. 46 Alascom argued that the Commission had in the past deferred to these circumstances by limiting entry in Alaska by competing carriers and asked the Commission to continue this policy by excluding Alaska from the DEMS/DTS proceeding. 35 The FCC responded by noting that as early as 1970, shortly after Alascom's parent, RCA Global Communications, Inc., purchased the Alaska Communication System from its previous operator, the United States Air Force, the Commission indicated that it did not intend to perpetuate a protected monopoly status for the Alaska system but would judge each application for service on its own merits. 47 In recent years, the Commission contends, it has moved progressively toward treating Alaska in the same manner as it treats the 48 contiguous states. Consequently, the agency refused the invitation to exclude Alaska from the DTS proceeding. 48 36 As previously noted, the DTS Order did not authorize DEMS/DTS service in Alaska or elsewhere; rather, determination of the benefits and detriments of service in particular markets was left to individual licensing proceedings. 49 For the same reasons that lead us to hold that the rural impact issue is not yet ripe for review, we decline to consider the merits of Alascom's petition. 37 Although Alascom has provided some factual information relevant to the effects of by-pass in Alaska, other necessary facts remain to be developed. We are supplied, for example, with statistical data concerning the cost of bush service and Alascom's dependence on interstate settlements. But because we have no information concerning the proportion of interstate service that DTS/DEMS systems would be likely to displace, it is impossible to assess the probable economic impact on carriers presently serving Alaska. Potential DEMS/DTS carriers have had no chance to demonstrate how their services might benefit the Alaskan public, nor has the FCC been given the opportunity to alleviate any possible detriment to Alascom and other Alaska carriers by adopting special rules for Alaskan DTS carriage after full development of these and other facts in the context of a licensing hearing. 50 38 Nevertheless, Alascom appears to argue that postponing review will inflict undue hardship, because the burden of proof with respect to the public interest ramifications of a DTS application may be shifted if the Commission's Order is permitted to stand. 51 This allegation of hardship, however, is clearly inadequate to render the Alaska entry issue ripe for review. The FCC has indicated its willingness to consider [t]he impact of DEMS on basic telephone service in Alaska ... in the context of a particular application to initiate the service there, provided that a sufficient showing of unusual circumstances is made that would warrant a departure from the general public interest finding. 52 The Commission's general public interest finding was grounded on two assumptions: (1) DEMS/DTS will not substantially overlap service provided by existing carriers; and (2) to the extent there is overlap, it will be insignificant, at least in major metropolitan areas. If, as Alascom contends, Alaskan service conditions differ so substantially from those in metropolitan areas that these assumptions do not bear true for Alaska, a showing of unusual circumstances should not be difficult to provide. 39 Moreover, FCC regulations do not, as Alascom seems to suggest, place the entire burden of proving public interest benefit upon a license applicant. To be sure, each application must [s]tate specifically the reasons why a grant of the proposal would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, 53 but even absent a generalized finding of public interest benefit in a previous rulemaking, petitions to deny a license must [c]ontain specific allegations of fact ... supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof, ... which shall be sufficient to demonstrate ... that a grant of ... the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest. 54 If a substantial and material issue of fact is presented, 55 the Commission must conduct a formal hearing on the license request; the application may be granted only on a finding that the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served thereby. 56 Thus, the burden of proof is normally divided between parties supporting and opposing the grant. The nominal additional burden of coming forward with an initial showing that the assumptions undergirding the Commission's generalized findings do not apply to Alaska is too inconsequential a hardship to warrant a rush to review.