WASHINGTON-Of the 89 winners of C-block personal communications services licenses last May, only four were singled out by seven other entities who seek to have the Federal Communications Commission either deny their licenses or to institute hearings on their suitability to own spectrum.
DCR PCS Inc. (now known as Pocket Communications), PCS 2000 LP, Meretel Communications LP and NextWave Personal Communications Inc. were challenged on the basis of numerous foreign ownership, character and FCC-related flaws; the companies have until July 11 to rebut the charges. After that time, the commission will weigh the public record before awarding or denying any C-block licenses.
One surprising no-show in the petition-to-deny process was Steve Zecola of the now-liquidated Go Telecommunications Corp., who had intimated almost to the July 1 deadline that he would be filing against nemesis NextWave Telecom Inc. However, a press release appearing on that day announced Zecola’s appointment as the president of retail services for Dallas-based US One Communications Corp., a company active in the competitive local exchange market.
Another shocker was a petition to deny filed by PCS 2000 investor Susan Easton, wife of former PCS 2000 principal Anthony Easton-who continues to be under FCC investigation along with other highly placed company officials-against her own investment. Susan Easton alluded that PCS 2000 principals had entered into an agreement to sell general partner Unicom’s interest in PCS 2000 to another entity, thus negating her ownership and putting it into the hands of “one of the officers and directors of PCS 2000.”
Easton also “understands that the transfer of ownership interest may have been made pursuant to a pre-arranged agreement that has been formally or informally sanctioned by the staff at the commission.” Because the case against PCS 2000 personnel still is open, FCC officials would not comment on any such deal; Anthony Easton, when contacted, told RCR that “I am not Susan,” and that he knew of no such sale; and Easton’s attorney could not be reached for substantiation.
Easton fully intends to bring suit against PCS 2000 if her interests are touched, and such action “would eliminate the possibility of PCS 2000 providing service to the public in the near term” and that, if Easton is successful in protecting her turf, “PCS 2000 would lack the character to be a commission licensee.”
Also filing against PCS 2000 was WillowRun LP, which took over the Swim Family Trust’s 14 limited partner units in PCS 2000 six months ago. Charging Unicom, PCS 2000’s general partner, with misrepresenting the facts to both the limited partners and to the FCC, WillowRun wrote that “the LPs would be better served by return of their investment.” The petitioner also asked for complete access to FCC files and evidence in its investigation of the bidder, once a ruling is made by the full commission; full disclosure to all LPs; and additional time to submit subsequent petitions to deny based on the investigation record.
Antigone Communications LP and PCS Devco teamed in comments against granting NextWave’s licenses; both were unsuccessful bidders in the C-block auction, and both blamed NextWave’s “presence and participation” in the auction for “economic injury to petitioners.”
The two also charged NextWave with foreign ownership that exceeds the commission’s 25-percent cap; that the strong position of investor Pohang Steel America Corp., because its total gross revenues exceed $500 million, kicks NextWave out of the small-business category; and that Qualcomm Inc. is tied too much to NextWave’s principals in particular and NextWave in general. According to Antigone/Devco, ” … a material question of fact is raised as to whether NextWave is controlled by Qualcomm and if not, whether Qualcomm’s influence is so great that Qualcomm must be deemed an attributable owner of NextWave.”
Radiofone Inc. took DCR PCS and Meretel to task only because the Louisiana C-block licenses gained by those two, according to Radiofone, should have gone to Radiofone, which was forced to drop out of the auction because of possible penalties down the road. Radiofone’s petitions to deny these licenses harks back to 1995 waiver requests and appeals-court decisions that were not heeded by the FCC prior to the beginning of the C-block auction.
Although Radiofone, even as a cellular carrier, won the right to participate in the C-block auction based on an appeals-court decision, it still had no assurances from the FCC at the time the auction commenced that it would not be subject to heavy penalties if it were the high bidder in the Louisiana markets and pending litigation disallowed Radiofone’s award of such licenses. Its petitions asked the commission to dismiss or deny the three licenses in question; to put them up for re-auction; and to “permit Radiofone to bid on, obtain, control and retain” those licenses, “with no strings attached, because the Sixth Circuit held that the PCS/cellular cross-ownership rule is unlawful.”
Another petition to deny, which was reported in the June 24 issue of RCR, was lodged by National Telecom PCS Inc. against DCR PCS Inc.
