Opinion ID: 187327
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Forbearance and Considering Competitive Market Conditions

Text: M2Z also contends that the FCC failed to address whether forbearance would promote competitive market conditions, as required by 47 U.S.C. § 160(b). M2Z says both that the Commission's treatment was cursory and that it defined the wrong market in its analysis. The Commission wrote the following: We observe that the grant of any of the pending applications, by cutting off consideration of a competitive bidding licensing framework and precluding consideration of other potential applicants for this spectrum, would appear to compromise the development of competitive market conditions. Order, at ¶ 10 n. 34. M2Z sought a 15-year monopoly on valuable bandwidth; it should not be surprised that the FCC was terse in its analysis of this proposal's effect on competitive market conditions. M2Z tries to analogize to the reversibly brief treatment given by administrative agencies in Getty v. FSLIC, 805 F.2d 1050 (D.C.Cir.1986), and Missouri Public Service Commission v. FERC, 234 F.3d 36 (D.C.Cir.2000). The petitioner in Getty was able to show that despite two fleeting references in the administrative record to a statutorily required factor, there was no evidence that [the agency] paid any attention to that factor. Getty, 805 F.2d at 1055, 1056. The agency's order only contained a boilerplate recitation of the language required. Id. at 1055. In Missouri Public Service Commission, the agency merely named the factors, and we held that [a] passing reference ... is not sufficient to satisfy the [agency's] obligation to carry out `reasoned' ... decisionmaking. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 234 F.3d at 41. Though not lengthy, the Commission's order in this case was neither a boilerplate recitation of the required language nor a passing reference without any reasoning. The FCC named the factor (competitive market conditions), and gave two reasons why the application would appear to compromise that factornamely, by cutting off consideration of a competitive bidding licensing framework and precluding consideration of other potential applicants for this spectrum. Order, at ¶ 10 n. 34. And, though the Order referred directly to the provider market, rather than the consumer market, it seems clear what the Commission meant. Without scrutinizing and comparing applications from various companies, the Commission feared that it would not choose the most efficient provider for this bandwidth. An auction would help it find this ideal provider, so it was not in the public interest to forbear from an auction. In short, the FCC's analysis of the effects of M2Z's breathtakingly broad petition on competitive market conditions was so plainly unobjectionable that it didn't warrant any further discussion by the Commission.