Court Opinion

ID: 9490044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:31:23.207857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:52.276738
License: Public Domain

ORDER ON REHEARING
April 29, 1997
Per Curiam.
Upon consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing filed April 21, 1997, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied.
MobileTel did not articulate the argument that it now claims this court overlooked until the oral argument, but our decision nevertheless adequately addressed this argument. Our decision included a reference to the Federal Communications Commission’s decision in Xerox Corporation, 90 F.C.C.2d 547 (1982), which MobileTel now claims we overlooked, in which we explained that the Commission’s action under review was entirely consistent with Xerox, because in Xerox (as in the action under review) the Commission had considered the policies .underlying its regulations in order to determine how the regulations should be construed. See MobileTel, Inc. v. F.C.C., 107 F.3d 888, 894-95 (D.C.Cir.1997). Our decision also observed that the Commission had declined to extend eligibility for the set-aside that MobileTel sought to other technologies that were used in the provision of local service, indicating that the Commission had not (as MobileTel now claims) ignored its own policies and the technologies used to provide local service in deciding whether to make the set-aside available to particular service providers. See id. at 895-96.