WPCJr 2B;J Courier X-#XP\  P6Q_ XP#3|j(Additional) LPT2HPL4SAD.PRSx  @\X^X@2&6%FK Z3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bold P6Q+XP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNX\  P6G;P7jC:,_ Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,RXn4  pG;X@|ND,i|\  P6G;PpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddda݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#PHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd$+. 2U*%'&4('X((1$)DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date% X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off&@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance'LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5( 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   2.)1**1++1,,n.LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5)f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11*L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14+ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document,K\ * ă2`0-X..//i/0d/FOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large0B*d. 251j0203E34-`4HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored1 V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins2u H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice3 ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format4D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   2(:5856867/88X9INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice5:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro6z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle82;9[Z::[:;[;<[k;SMALLSmall Typestyle9FINEFine Typestyle:LARGELarge Typestyle;EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<2>=[;>S<?p=@qF>VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O g?` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g@  . 2@Ae>BeN?C?DpF@Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gA  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gB  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gC*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gD  ` ` ` 2NCE@FzAGBHBRight Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gE8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gFA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gG0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gHJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2jFICJ-DKDLERight Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gIS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gJ\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gKe` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gLn` ` `  hhh@  21IMFNmGO'HPHRight Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gMw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gNF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gO&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gP&#$  . 2KQcIRISJT(KTechnical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gQ*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gR''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gS&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gT4+$,     2 ZU LVLWv MXYTechnical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gU&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gV&/0  . MACNormalW;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#footnote tex#X'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#2^Y;ZZ~Z[iL\\ ]referenceY;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1Z&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2[I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output File\W r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  B2f]^K_KbKKdFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Document]iޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#"i~'^DO]uuĶOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuAAgרOYͨۨOAOkuOgugugOuuAAuAuuuuOYAuuuugp/p~O=~kOOO=OOOOOOOOuAggggg͘gggggOAOAOAOAuuuuuuuuuuguruuuuggggg~ggggguuu~u~uOAOuOOOu~~uA]OOAuuuuuͨOOOYYY~bAkuuuuuuۨ~ggguOuYOu=uuN*NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTTkuOguuuuuAKuFKuFOOgguPPuu叱T錌TƒOguF"u錇~u匌u"i~'^DOuuOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuOOuۨYuۨ騨OAOuOuggOuAOAăugYOuuug]3]yO=yOOO=OOOOOOuOAuuuuu騨gggggVAVAVAVAuuuuuuuuuuuuuggyggggguuuyuYAYYOYyyAiO]Auu稨gggYYYywO騨ygggOYOu=uuN?NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTT|uOuuuuuuFOuFOuFOOuuuPPuu鏱T錌TƒOuuF"u錊~u匌u"i~'^#)0<8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""X\  P6G;P7jC:,_ Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,RXn4  pG;X@|ND,i|\  P6G;P@ND,ɼ4  pG;W!@(#,ޡh@\  P6G;hPH5!,,5\  P6G;,Pv@|ND,i|\  P6G;P@ND,,ʼ4  pG;DDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdd2\nHry.X80,>X\  P6G;P7jC:,_ Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,RXn4  pG;X@|ND,i|\  P6G;P@ND,ɼ4  pG;W!@(#,ޡh@\  P6G;hPH5!,,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%)bW*f9 xr G;X'3 'A 'A,  X-    v $// Order, Pacific Telesis Mobile (SF), DA 951414//$ v   v $/ 309(d)(2) Action Upon Applications/$  X- !RECORD ONLY v ԃ  Xv- DA 951414  a_<#|\  P6G;iP# ) Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554  X} - #Xj\  P6G;_ XP#  Xf -In the Matter of XXhhX@Xh)(# XxX` ` X XXhhX@Xh)(#  X8 -Application of XXhhX@Xh) File No. 00006CWL95(#  X! -Pacific Telesis Mobile Services hhX@Xh) Call Sign KNLF 209(#  X -for a License to Provide Broadband PCS@Xh)(#  X-Service on Block B in the San Francisco@h)  X-OaklandSan Jose Major Trading Area (M005)hh) (# XxX` ` (#` XxX` ` (#`  X-; ORDERà  X-    XR- Adopted: June 23, 1995 ` XhhX@XhReleased: June 23, 1995 (# By the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:  X -  X- MI. INTRODUCTION ă  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)x  X-x` ` 1. On March 13, 1995, the Commission announced Pacific Telesis Mobile Services ("PTMS") as the auction winner for a broadband Personal Communications Services ("PCS") Block B license for the San FranciscoOaklandSan Jose Major Trading Area  X-("MTA"). yO-Ѝ Announcing the Winning Bidders in the FCC's Auction of 99 Licenses to Provide Broadband PCS in  {O -Major Trading Areas, Public Notice, Mimeo No. 52746, March 13, 1995. On April 12, 1995, the FCC Form 600 (longform application) of PTMS was  Xl-accepted for filing.l" {O?#-Ѝ Personal Communications Service Information Broadband, Public Notice, Report No. CW9502, Mimeo No. 53320, April 12, 1995. On May 12, 1995, WirelessCo, L.P. ("WirelessCo") filed a petition to deny or condition PTMS's PCS license. On May 25, 1995, PTMS filed an opposition, and WirelessCo replied on June 7, 1995. WirelessCo has established standing under Section  X'!-309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"),J'!| yOT(-Ѝ 47 U.S.C.  309(d).J by virtue of its position as the applicant for the competing 30 MHz broadband PCS license in the San Francisco"" 0*0*0*!"ԫOaklandSan Jose MTA. "" 0*0*0*!"Ԍ"" 0*0*0*!"Ԍx` ` "" 0*0*0*!"Ԍ X"- II.  CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ă  "" 0*0*0*!"Ԍ"" 0*0*0*!"Ԍ X"-x` ` 2. WirelessCo argues that, in a petition for clarification or reconsideration of"" 0*0*0*!"  X-the Second Report and Order in GN Docket 93252 ("Second CMRS Report and Order"), {Oy-Ѝ Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, Second Report and Order, GN  {OC-Docket No. 93252, 9 FCC Rcd 1411 (1994)("CMRS Second Report and Order").  Pacific Telesis ("PacTel"), the local exchange carrier ("LEC") affiliate of PTMS, has requested a clarification that the Part 64 cost allocation and affiliate transaction rules do not apply to LEC provision of PCS, because PCS is a "regulated" commercial mobile radio  X-service ("CMRS").>Z$ yO{-Ѝ Petition of WirelessCo L.P. to Deny or to Condition License Grant, filed May 12, 1995, at 2 ("WirelessCo  {OC -Petition"). See Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration of Pacific Bell, filed in GEN Docket No. 93252 at 25 (May 19, 1994). > WirelessCo suggests that PacTel is attempting to avoid nonstructural  X-safeguards in transactions between PacTel and PTMS.SF yO -Ѝ WirelessCo Petition at 3.S WirelessCo urges the Commission to clarify that the Part 64 rules apply to PacTel and PTMS because crosssubsidization of PTMS  Xa-will cause harm to the CMRS marketplace, as well as to Petitioner.Ea {O-Ѝ Id. at 45.E WirelessCo also expresses concern that PacTel may be able to establish its own "cost basis" for providing interconnection services to other CMRS competitors, based on unique services it provides to PTMS, which arguably would comply with the affiliate transaction rules of Part 32, but be  X -much higher than the needs of its PCS competitors.E h  {O-Ѝ Id. at 56.E Thus, WirelessCo requests that the Commission either deny PTMS's PCS application, or impose conditions on the license that would require PacTel and PTMS to comply with all affiliate transaction rules and cost  X -allocation rules that otherwise govern LEC/affiliate transactions.C  {Ok-Ѝ Id. at 6.C WirelessCo also requests that the Commission specifically prohibit PacTel from providing any interconnection or  X-network advantages to PTMS that would be discriminatory to its competitors.C   {O-Ѝ Id. at 7.C  X{-x` ` hh@ x` ` 3. PTMS opposes the petition, stating that, since PacTel filed the petition for reconsideration or clarification in GN Docket No. 93252, PacTel now believes it is subject to the Part 64 accounting safeguards, and will comply fully with all cost accounting rules in  X-transactions between PacTel and PTMS.  yO"-Ѝ Pacific Telesis Mobile Services Oppositions to Petitions to Deny, filed May 25, 1995, at 1011 ("PTMS Opposition"). PTMS also argues that WirelessCo's concerns are  X-more appropriately raised in the proceeding that is the subject of accounting safeguards.S v yO/&-Ѝ PTMS Opposition at 1112.S PTMS also suggests that WirelessCo should raise its objections in response to PacTel's "Plan" 0*((E" of NonStructural Safeguards" that PacTel must file with the Commission before offering PCS  X-service.D  {Ob-Ѝ Id. at 12.D  X-x` `  X-x` ` 4. In reply, WirelessCo contends that its concerns that PacTel would engage in discriminatory interconnection practices stem from the provision by PacTel of "advanced and robust network services" and that those services, coupled with preferential pricing options,  Xv-offer PacTel and PTMS significant room for anticompetitive behavior.vZ yO -Ѝ WirelessCo, Inc. Reply to Opposition to Petition to Deny or Condition License, filed June 7, 1995 ("WirelessCo Reply") at 23. For example, WirelessCo contends, PTMS can take advantage of preferential pricing by PacTel that is priced as a "special assembly," which may comply with the cost accounting rules, but which  X1-is not directly comparable to the network services provided to any other user.C1 {O-Ѝ Id. at 3.C Thus, WirelessCo urges the Commission to impose conditions on PTMS's PCS license that: 1) require reporting by outside auditors specifically on compliance by PacTel in its relationship with PTMS; 2) require PacTel to disaggregate any bundled services it provides to PTMS so that PTMS's competitors may purchase certain service components on nondiscriminatory terms and conditions; and 3) declare that PacTel's pricing plan cannot reward volume  X -purchasing (e.g., by its affiliate) with more favorable terms.C D {O-Ѝ Id. at 4.C In a supplemental filing, PTMS claims that WirelessCo's contentions that PacTel will favor PTMS in pricing are "implausible  X{-speculation."d{ yO-ԍ Letter of PTMS ("PTMS Letter"), filed June 21, 1995, at 2.d  XM- III. DISCUSSIONà x` `  X-x` ` 5. Under Section 309(d) of the Act, parties filing a petition to deny an application must make specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that a grant of the  X-application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest, convenience, and  X-necessity.f  yO -Ѝ Astroline Communications Co. L.P. v. FCC, 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988); 47 U.S.C.   {O!-309(d)(1).  The Commission bases its threshold determination on an evaluation of the  X-petition and supporting affidavits.=  {O6$-Ѝ Id.= Once the Commission determines whether the petitioner  X-has made a prima facie case under Section 309(d)(1), the Commission must determine whether the petitioner has presented a substantial and material question of fact upon which"R 0*(("  X-relief may be granted.S yOy-Ѝ 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(2).S If no such question is raised, the Commission will deny the petition and grant the application if it otherwise serves the public interest, convenience, and  X-necessity.MX yO-Ѝ 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(2).M  Based on the pleadings and supporting materials before us, we find that  X-WirelessCo has not raised a substantial and material question of fact and, therefore, we will deny its petition. x` `  Xv-x` ` 6. The Commission's accounting rules require the separate accounting of costs incurred by a LEC in its regulated activities from those incurred by its nonregulated  XH-affiliates, and accounting for LEC transactions with affiliates.tH {O -Ѝ 47 C.F.R.  64.901 et seq.; 47 C.F.R.  32.23. t The Commission adopted  X1-these rules in the Joint Cost Order to help ensure that wireline ratepayers would not bear the costs of a LEC's nonregulated activities. In fashioning such rules, the Commission determined that the accounting classification would relate directly to the scope of regulation  X -under Title II of the Act. z {O-Ѝ Separation of Costs of Regulated Telephone Service from Costs of Non-regulated Activities, Report and  {O-Order, CC Docket No. 86111, 2 FCC Rcd 1298, 1307 (1987)("Joint Cost Order").  Specifically, the Commission stated that all activities that are classified as common carrier communications for Title II purposes, whether or not they are tariffed services, are classified as regulated activities for purposes of the accounting rules and  X -nonregulated activity cost allocation rules.F  {O0-Ѝ Id. at 1307.F WirelessCo argues that PacTel's interpretation  X-of the Commission's statement in the Joint Cost Order is erroneous, and requests that the Commission impose conditions on PTMS's license affirming that PacTel must comply with Parts 64 and 32. x` `   X8-x` ` 7. The issue raised by WirelessCo is in essence a request for clarification of whether Parts 64 and 32 apply to LECs whose affiliates provide PCS service. The applicability of Parts 64 and 32 to CMRS services (including PCS) is an issue that has been  X-raised expressly in petitions for reconsideration of the Second CMRS Report and Order, which  X-is currently under consideration by the Commission. Any decision made in that proceeding will be binding on PacTel and PTMS. We therefore conclude that that proceeding is the  X-proper forum for resolving this issue.h  {O"-Ѝ See Paging Network of Virginia, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 1016, 1017 (Wireless Telecom. Bur. 1995), recon.  {O#-pending; LIPPERLaRUE, 60 RR 2d 1482, 1485 (1986). To the extent that WirelessCo has raised the issue  X-here, we will consider its pleadings as ex parte filings in the CMRS reconsideration, and  X-herewith incorporate all pleadings into the record of the CMRS reconsideration proceeding as they relate to this issue.  XX-x` ` "X 0*(("Ԍx` ` 8. Furthermore, WirelessCo's argument that PacTel will favor PTMS in pricing to the disadvantage of its PCS competitors does not raise a substantial and material  X-question of fact, because it is merely an unsupported allegation of potential misconduct. {OK-Ѝ See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc., Order, DA 951129 (Wireless Telecom. Bur., released May  yO-19, 1995) at  41.  As such, it provides no basis for either denying PTMS's application or imposing conditions upon the license. If potential for anticompetitive conduct by PacTel or any other carrier exists, the  X-Commission will deal with those issues in a separate rule making context," {O` -Ѝ See Equal Access and Interconnection Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio Services,  {O* -Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry, CC Docket No. 9454, 9 FCC Rcd 5408, 5450 (1994). or upon  Xv-complaint.v~ yO -Ѝ The Section 208 complaint process is available to anyone seeking redress against a common carrier. Therefore, we will deny WirelessCo's petition under Section 309(d)(2).  XH-x` ` }IV. CONCLUSION ă x` ` 9. Having reviewed the application and the pleadings filed in this matter, we conclude that grant of the subject application will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, and that the petitioner has not sufficiently alleged facts establishing that grant of the application would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.  X -x` ` 6 V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă x` `  10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 309(d)(2) of the Act, the "Petition of WirelessCo, L.P. to Deny or to Condition License Grant" IS HEREBY  XK-DENIED.K {O -Ѝ The applications are granted by separate Order adopted today. See Application for A and B Block  {O-Broadband PCS Licenses, Order, DA 951411 (Wireless Telecom. Bur., released June 23, 1995). x` `  11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pleadings filed by WirelessCo, L.P., in response to the application of Pacific Telesis Mobile Services for a Broadband Personal Communications Services license for the San FranciscoOaklandSan Jose MTA (File No. 00006CWL95, Call Sign KNLF 209) ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED into the record of  X-the reconsideration of the CMRS Second Report and Order and will be considered ex parte  X-filings, to the extent they address the question of accounting safeguards.  x` ` x` ` hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` hhRegina M. Keeney x` ` hhChief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau" j 0*((y"Ԍx` `