Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Loralen Local Multipoint Distribution Service Extension Denial Order

Download Options

Released: October 15, 2012

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1638

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In re Matter of
)
)

LORALEN CORP LLC
)
File Nos. 0005220539, 0005220561
)
Requests for Extension of Time, or in the
)
alternative, Limited Waiver of Substantial Service )
Requirements for Local Multipoint Distribution
)
Service Stations WPOJ997 (Dyersburg-Union
)
City, TN) and WPOJ998 (New London-Norwich,
)
CT)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: October 12, 2012

Released: October 15, 2012

By the Deputy Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny Loralen Corp LLC’s (Loralen)
requests for extension of time to demonstrate substantial service for their Local Multipoint Distribution
Service (LMDS) licenses, as well as its associated requests for waiver of the June 1, 2012 substantial
service deadline. Given our denial of these requests, Loralen’s licenses for Stations WPOJ997 and
WPOJ998 automatically terminated, by operation of Commission rule, as of June 1, 2012.

II.

BACKGROUND

2. In 1997, the Commission allocated 1,300 megahertz of LMDS spectrum in each basic trading
area (“BTA”) across the United States.1 Specifically, the Commission allocated two LMDS licenses per


1 See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Redesignate the 27.5 GHz
Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies For Local
Multipoint Distribution Service and For Fixed Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92-297, Second Report and Order,
Order on Reconsideration and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
, 12 FCC Rcd 12545, 12605 ¶ 136 (1997)
(”Second LMDS Report and Order”); see also Rand McNally Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide 36-39 (123rd
ed. 1992). Rand McNally is the copyright owner of the Major Trading Area (MTA) and BTA Listings, which list
the BTAs contained in each MTA and the counties within each BTA, as embodied in Rand McNally’s Trading Area
System MTA/BTA Diskette, and geographically represented in the map contained in Rand McNally’s Commercial
Atlas & Marketing Guide. The conditional use of Rand McNally copyrighted material by interested persons is
authorized under a blanket license agreement dated February 10, 1994 and covers use by LMDS applicants. This
agreement requires authorized users of the material to include a legend on reproductions (as specified in the license
agreement) indicating Rand McNally ownership. The Commission has allocated the LMDS for operations in a total
of 493 BTAs throughout the nation.

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1638

BTA – an “A Block” and a “B Block” license in each.2 The A Block license is comprised of 1,150
megahertz of total bandwidth, and the B Block license is comprised of 150 megahertz of total bandwidth.3
The A Block consists of the sub bands 27.50-28.35 GHz (the A1 Band); 29.10-29.25 GHz (the A2 Band);
and 31.075-31.225 GHz (the A3 Band).4 The B Block consists of the sub bands 31.00-31.075 (the B1
Band) and 31.225-31.30 GHz (the B2 Band).5 The same entity may hold the licenses for both the A and
B Blocks of spectrum in an individual BTA, but each license is auctioned and licensed separately.
3.
LMDS licensees are regulated under Part 101 of the Commission’s rules, which generally
governs terrestrial microwave operations, and may provide any service consistent with the Commission’s
Rules and the licensee’s regulatory status,6 subject to a ten-year term from the initial license grant date.7
At the end of the ten-year period, licensees are required to submit an acceptable showing to the
Commission demonstrating that they are providing “substantial service” in each licensed area.8 Failure
by any licensee to meet this requirement will result in forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be
ineligible to regain it.9
4.
The final LMDS band allocation was adopted by the Commission on March 20, 1997.10
Since allocating the LMDS spectrum, the Commission has thus far held two LMDS auctions: Auction 17
and Auction 23.11 Auction No. 23, the second LMDS auction, began on April 27, 1999, and closed on
May 12, 1999.12 The licenses for Station WPOJ997 and WPOJ998 were issued to Loralen on August 5,
1999 as a result of Auction No. 23.13

5.
Loralen was originally required to demonstrate substantial service by August 5, 2009, or
10 years after the initial license grant dates.14 The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (the “Bureau”)
has already granted Loralen and other LMDS licensees a significant extension of time in which to meet
substantial service. On August 5, 2009, Loralen filed applications for an extension of time until June 1,


2 See Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12556 ¶ 12.
3 See id.
4 See 47 C.F.R. § 101.1005.
5 See id.
6 See 47 C.F.R. § 101.1013(b).
7 See Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12657 ¶ 259. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 101.67, LMDS
licenses are issued for a period not to exceed ten years, subject to renewal upon demonstration of substantial service.
8 See 47 C.F.R. § 101.1011(a); see also Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12658 ¶¶ 261-262.
9 See 47 C.F.R. § 101.1011(a).
10 See Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12556 ¶ 13; see also Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21,
and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz
Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies For Local Multipoint Distribution Service and For Fixed Satellite
Services, CC Docket No. 92-297, First Report and Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd
19005, 19025 ¶ 45 (1996) (allocating the initial 1 GHz of spectrum for LMDS and seeking comment on the
allocation of an additional 300 MHz of spectrum at 31.0-31.3 GHz).
11 See, e.g., LMDS Auction Closes, Public Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 18217 (1998) (Auction 17 Closing PN); Local
Multipoint Distribution Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 8543 (1999) (Auction 23 Closing PN).
12 See Auction 23 Closing PN.

13 See File No. 0000014667 (granted Aug. 5, 1999). See also FCC Announces the Conditional Grant of 127 Local
Multipoint Distribution Service Licenses, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 13200 (WTB 1999).
14 See Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12657 ¶ 259.
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1638

2012 to demonstrate substantial service for its LMDS licenses.15 On September 25, 2009, the Bureau
granted Loralen an extension until June 1, 2012 to construct its LMDS licenses, resulting in a nearly three
year construction extension.16 The applications were granted with a comment referring to a 2008 Bureau
order where the Bureau granted extensions to other LMDS licensees.17 In the LMDS Order, the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (the “Bureau”) granted the requests for extension of the construction
deadlines filed by a large group of LMDS licensees to extend their deadlines to meet the substantial
service requirements to June 1, 2012, resulting in a nearly four year construction extension for each of
these licensees.18 The Bureau found that these LMDS licensees faced factors beyond their control,
including difficulties in obtaining viable and affordable equipment, that warranted an extension.19 In
making this finding, the Bureau noted that the licensees seeking relief from the construction deadlines
represented a majority of LMDS licensees for whom buildout requirements were approaching, and that
they all faced these same basic obstacles to timely construction.20 Thus, these obstacles were not a
product of an individual licensee’s short-sightedness or its unfortunate business decisions; rather, the
difficulties in procuring the basic equipment necessary for LMDS operations were widespread, stemming
from the state of the market. Based on the record evidence, the Bureau anticipated that various
developments in the market – arising in large part from the rollout of new services that could provide
opportunities for LMDS operations – would help rectify these difficulties. Thus, the Bureau found that
LMDS licensees could potentially use their licenses to provide wireless backhaul services to licensees in
the 700 MHz band, the Advanced Wireless Services-1 (“AWS-1”) band, and other bands suitable for
mobile broadband service, all of which at that time had recently been auctioned, licensed, or put into
use.21
The Bureau anticipated that these bands would develop robustly, along with other mobile and
fixed wireless services, and that resulting opportunities for associated LMDS service (such as wireless
backhaul) would help spur production of equipment designed for LMDS use and thus facilitate timely
construction by LMDS licensees, under the extended buildout deadline set by the Bureau.22
6.
On May 16, 2012, Loralen filed applications pursuant to Section 1.946(e) of the
Commission’s Rules seeking a further two year extension of time until June 1, 2014, to construct its
LMDS licenses.23 Invoking the Commission’s general waiver authority under Section 1.925 of the
Commission’s Rules, Loralen alternatively seeks a waiver of Section 101.1011(a) of the Commission’s
Rules, as a means of extending the construction deadline applicable to the licenses until June 1, 2014.
Loralen argues that equipment manufacturers have been unable to develop technology that could provide
backhaul services at price points consistent with a viable business model.24 Loralen claims that it has


15 File Nos. 0003923228, 0003923760 (filed Aug. 5, 2009).
16 File Nos. 0003923228, 0003923760 (granted Sep. 25, 2009).
17 Id., citing Applications filed by Licensees in the Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) Seeking Waivers
of Section 101.1011 of the Commission’s Rules and Extensions of Time to Construct and Demonstrate Substantial
Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 5894 (WTB 2008) (LMDS Order).
18 LMDS Order.
19 Id. at 5905 ¶ 24.
20 Id.
21 Id. at 5905 ¶ 25.
22 Id.
23 See File Nos. 0005220539, 0005220561 (filed May 16, 2012) (Extension Applications). With each Extension
Application, Loralen filed an exhibit entitled “Request for Waiver and Limited Extension of Deadline for
Construction Build-Out under 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3) and for Establishing Compliance with Section 101.1011(a)
LMDS Substantial Service Requirements” (Extension and Waiver Request).
24 Extension and Waiver Request at 2.
3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1638

spoken to equipment manufacturers and that if it attempted to order equipment, it would take several
months to receive equipment.25
Loralen states that it “has investigated financing and partnering
alternatives and with the recent availability of the necessary equipment, expects that in the relatively near
future the necessary arrangements can be finalized to facilitate the requisite build-out.”26 Loralen hopes
to work with an unnamed national carrier and tower company to facilitate its buildout.27 It has tentatively
identified two pieces of equipment that it wishes to use and has “researched and analyzed the potential
market for services.28

III.

DISCUSSION

7.
We find that Loralen has not justified a grant of an extension of time, or a waiver of the
construction deadline, for its LMDS licenses. And without such extension or waiver, Loralen’s licenses
have automatically cancelled, by operation of Sections 1.946(c) and 1.955(a)(2) of the Commission’s
Rules, as of June 1, 2012.29 We discuss these findings in detail below.

A.

Extension Requests

8.
Loralen requests a further two year extension of time to demonstrate substantial service
until June 1, 2014.30 As noted above, this is the second extension that Loralen has requested for
constructing these licenses. To be eligible for an extension of time to construct, Loralen must show that
its “failure to meet the construction deadline is due to involuntary loss of site or other causes beyond its
control.” 31 We conclude that Loralen has not met this threshold.
9.
Loralen argues that it has not constructed because of difficulties in obtaining LMDS
equipment for backhaul at a cost that supports its business plans. The Commission has consistently found
that a licensee’s own business decisions are not circumstances beyond the licensee’s control and are
therefore not an appropriate basis for regulatory relief.32 In view of this precedent, we find that none of


25 Extension and Waiver Request at 2.
26 Extension and Waiver Request at 6.
27 Extension and Waiver Request at 6-7.
28 Extension and Waiver Request at 7-8.
29 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.946(c) (providing that if a licensee in the Wireless Radio Services fails to commence service or
operations by the expiration of its construction period or to meet its coverage or substantial service obligations by
the expiration of its coverage period, its authorization terminates automatically, without specific Commission action,
on the date the construction or coverage period expires) and 1.955(a)(2) (cross-referencing Section 1.946(c) and
reiterating that authorizations in the Wireless Radio Services automatically terminate without specific Commission
action, if the licensee fails to meet applicable construction or coverage requirements).
30 Extension and Waiver Request at 1.
31 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(e)(1).
32 See, e.g., Redwood Wireless Minnesota, LLC, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 22416 (WTB CWD 2002) (construction delays
resulting from business disputes were exercises of business judgment and were not outside Petitioner’s control);
Eldorado Communications LLC, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 24613 (WTB CWD 2002) (licensee’s determination to initially
deploy TDMA system and subsequently to adopt GSM with months remaining before construction deadline was
business decision within its control); Bristol MAS Partners, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 5007 (WTB PSPWD 1999)
(equipment installation or delivery not delayed for some unique reason and licensee failing to obtain equipment was
business decision); AAT Electronics Corporation, 93 FCC 2d 1034 (1983) (decision not to market service
aggressively because of equipment uncertainties was within licensee's control); Business Radio Communications
Systems, Inc., 102 FCC 2d 714 (1985) (construction delay caused by zoning challenge not a circumstance beyond
licensee's control); Texas Two-Way, Inc., 98 FCC 2d 1300 (1984), aff'd sub nom., Texas Two-Way, Inc. v. FCC, 762
4

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1638

the factors cited by Loralen demonstrate that its failure to construct was caused by circumstances beyond
its control.
10.
First, we find that the pace of the development of the market for LMDS equipment
wireless backhaul, by itself, does not justify granting an extension, because Loralen has had other ways to
develop its service independent of the backhaul market. Thus, its decision to put its LMDS spectrum on
the shelf until the market for wireless backhaul improved constituted a business decision voluntarily made
by Loralen, not an inevitable result of circumstances beyond its control. Moreover, even if wireless
backhaul presented the only feasible use of LMDS spectrum, Loralen’s justification for additional
construction time would fail, insofar as the market for wireless backhaul has been developing steadily. In
2005, 8.7 percent of backhaul traffic was sent by fixed wireless.33 By 2009, that figure increased to 12.3
percent.34 As noted above, when the Bureau granted an extension to LMDS licensees in 2008, it
anticipated that licensees could potentially provide wireless backhaul services to licensees in bands that
had recently been auctioned, licensed, or put into use.35 In the years since the Bureau originally extended
the construction deadline for these licenses, there has been considerable deployment of wireless
broadband service in the 700 MHz, AWS-1 and BRS/EBS bands. Thus, the validity of one of the factors
supporting the Bureau’s earlier extension of the construction deadline – that with some additional time,
productive opportunities for using LMDS licenses would develop as these emerging wireless broadband
services create a need for supporting backhaul service – has been substantially confirmed.

Notwithstanding that progress, Loralen has made little attempt to incorporate LMDS spectrum into its
backhaul plans. Furthermore, Loralen does not attempt to show that it made any active attempt to
develop LMDS equipment, either through its own efforts or by working with equipment suppliers.
Finally, we note that many LMDS licensees did meet the June 1, 2012 deadline and built facilities.36
Under those circumstances, we conclude that Loralen made a voluntary decision not to actively pursue
development of LMDS facilities.
11.
We also note that many LMDS licensees did meet the June 1, 2012 deadline and built
facilities.37 Loralen has had almost 13 years to build facilities, but it has sat back passively and waited.
Under those circumstances, we conclude that Loralen made a voluntary decision not to actively pursue
development of LMDS facilities. Its Extension Requests must therefore be denied.
12.
We find that Loralen, which made no attempt to commence construction of its LMDS
licenses in advance of the construction deadline, is readily distinguishable from several other licensees
that attempted to build out their licenses prior to the deadline and that ordered equipment but failed to
receive timely delivery of that equipment. Loralen investigated equipment, but chose not to order





F.2d 138 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (licensee is responsible for delay resulting from interference caused by construction
adjacent to construction site because site selection was an independent business decision).
33 See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 Annual Report and
Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile
Services, WT Docket No. 10-133, Fifteenth Report, 26 FCC Rcd 9664, 9845 ¶ 320 (2011).
34 Id. In a separate proceeding, Clearwire Corporation has indicated that it uses wireless for over 90 percent of its
backhaul needs, including almost 13,000 licenses with over 48,000 paths. See Comments of Clearwire Corporation,
WT Docket No. 12-156 (filed July 19, 2012) at 2.
35 LMDS Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 5905 ¶ 25.
36 As of October 3, 2012, the Broadband Division had accepted 67 LMDS buildout notifications from at least 18
different licensees. Another 221 showings were pending and undergoing review.
37 As of August 23, 2012, the Broadband Division had accepted 67 LMDS buildout notifications from at least 18
different licensees. Another 221 showings were pending and undergoing review.
5

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1638

equipment or build facilities in advance of the deadline. Thus, its failure to construct its licenses was the
result of its own business decision. Furthermore, these licensees requested extensions of six months or
less, while Loralen is requesting a two year extension.
13.
Loralen argues that the Bureau’s grant of extensions to LMDS licensees in 2008 supports
granting the instant Extension Requests.38 We reject that argument. In 2008, the Bureau anticipated that
licensees could potentially provide wireless backhaul services to licensees in bands that had recently been
auctioned, licensed, or put into use.39 In the years since the Bureau originally extended the construction
deadline for these licenses, there has been considerable deployment of wireless broadband service in the
700 MHz, AWS-1 and BRS/EBS bands. Thus, the Bureau’s rationale for extending the construction
deadline – to provide opportunities for LMDS licenses to be used for backhaul in support of these
emerging wireless broadband services – has been substantially realized. Notwithstanding that progress,
Loralen made no serious attempt to develop its LMDS spectrum. We therefore conclude that the decision
to grant an extension to LMDS licensees in 2008 does not support Loralen’s request for yet more time.
14.
Loralen cites a series of cases in which the Bureau granted extensions of the buildout
requirement in other services.40 Those cases are readily distinguishable from Loralen’s situation. In
many of those cases, there was a systemic problem with equipment availability that affected all licensees
in the band.41 Here, by contrast, many licensees have been able to obtain and deploy equipment. In other
cases, there were broader issues with the service rules that delayed or prevented deployment.42 No party
has argued that the LMDS service rules are responsible for delays in deploying service. In the two cases
where the former Commercial Wireless Division granted extensions of the five-year construction
requirement for the Personal Communications Service, the licensees had demonstrated diligence by
ordering equipment and deployment in the relevant markets.43 Here, Loralen made no serious attempt to
construct facilities in 13 years, and we do not find Loralen’s conduct to be diligent.


38 Extension and Waiver Request at 4.
39 LMDS Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 5905 ¶ 25.
40 Extension and Waiver Request at 9-11.
41 See, e.g., Consolidated Request of the WCS Coalition for Limited Waiver of Construction Deadline for 132 WCS
Licenses, WT Docket No. 06-102, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14134, 14139-14140 ¶ 10 (WTB 2006) (WCS Order)
(“participation by almost all of the licensees in the WCS industry in this proceeding leads us to believes that the
technical and equipment challenges in this band are widespread”); Request of Warren C. Havens for Waiver of The
Five-Year Construction Requirement For 220 MHz Service Part II Economic Area and Regional Licensees,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 12994, 13000-13001 ¶ 15 (WTB 2004) (“The two companies that
originally manufactured five kilohertz voice equipment no longer do so. We find that the loss of that equipment was
a unique circumstance that have frustrated licensees’ efforts to meet the construction requirements.”); FCI 900, Inc.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 11072, 11077 ¶ 7 (WTB 2001) (no digital voice equipment
available for the 900 MHz SMR band).
42 See WCS Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 14139 ¶ 10 (construction deadline extended until July 21, 2010 for WCS
licensees; Bureau notes that restrictive out-of-band emission limits may have impeded development of WCS
equipment); Request of Licensees in the 218-219 MHz Service for Waiver of the Five-Year Construction Deadline,
Order, 14 FCC Rcd 5190, 5194 ¶ 9 (WTB PS&PWD 1999) (suspending construction benchmark while notice of
proposed rulemaking proposing rule changes to service was pending).
43 See Monet Mobile Networks, Inc., Order, 17 FCC Rcd 6452, 6453 ¶ 4 (WTB CWD 2002) (licensee ordered
equipment in the year before the construction deadline, but vendors would not commit to providing equipment until
after the deadline); Leap Wireless International, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 19573, 19578
¶ 13 (WTB CWD 2001) (“We also find that an extension is supported by the fact that Leap has demonstrated
diligence in its acquisition and construction of the Data Licenses.”)
6

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1638

B.

Waiver Request

15.
To be granted a waiver of the June 1, 2012 construction deadline, Loralen must show that
either (1) the underlying purpose of the rule(s) would not be served or would be frustrated by application
to the instant case, and that a grant of the requested waiver would be in the public interest; or (2) in view
of the unique or unusual circumstances of the instant case, application of the rule(s) would be inequitable,
unduly burdensome or contrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no reasonable alternative.44 As
is discussed more fully below, we conclude that Loralen has failed to make the requisite showing, and we
therefore deny its waiver request.
16.
First, we conclude that an extension would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of
the substantial service standard, which, as the Commission has said, is to provide “a clear and expeditious
accounting of spectrum use by licensees to ensure that service is being provided to the public.” 45
Loralen claims it has been “impossible for virtually any license holder to proceed with construction or to
make use of this license(s) during the period up until” June 1, 2012.46 In fact, many other licensees made
a contrary judgment and built their facilities. Granting Loralen a further extension despite its lack of
effort in attempting to develop its LMDS spectrum would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of
the substantial service requirement.
17.
We also conclude that Loralen has not shown that requiring it to comply with the
substantial service requirements is inequitable, unduly burdensome, and contrary to the public interest.
As we have previously discussed, Loralen’s decision not to construct its LMDS licenses was a business
decision. Other licensees made other business decisions that led them to build out their licenses.
18.
Authorizations for LMDS licenses automatically terminate if the licensee fails to meet
construction or coverage requirements.47 In light of our decision to deny Loralen’s requests for an
extension or waiver of the construction requirements, Loralen’s licenses automatically terminated, by
operation of Sections 1.946(c) and 1.955(a)(2) of the Commission’s Rules,48 as of June 1, 2012.


44 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3); 47 C.F.R. § 1.3; see also Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164,
1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990); WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969), aff'd, 459 F.2d 1203 (1972), cert.
denied
, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972).
45See Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul
and Other Uses and to Provide Additional Flexibility to Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed
Microwave Licensees, WT Docket No. 10-153, Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, Second Notice of Inquiry, Order on Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order
, 27 FCC
Rcd 9735, 9773-9774 ¶ 104 (2012) (“Wireless Backhaul 2nd R&O”), citing 39 GHz R&O, 12 FCC Rcd at 18623 ¶
42; see also 39 GHz R&O, 12 FCC Rcd at 18625 ¶ 46 (“This approach will permit flexibility in system design and
market development, while ensuring that service is being provided to the public.”); 39 GHz R&O, 12 FCC Rcd at
18626 ¶ 46 (“This revised performance standard should ensure that meaningful service will be provided without
unduly restricting service offerings.”); 39 GHz R&O, 12 FCC Rcd at 18625 ¶ 47 (“[A]pplying a similar performance
requirement to all licensees at the license renewal point will help establish a level playing field without
compromising the goals of ensuring efficient spectrum use and expeditious provision of service to the public.”);
Renewal of Licenses to Provide Microwave Service in the 38.6 – 40.0 GHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and
Order
, 17 FCC Rcd 4404, 4407 ¶ 11 (WTB PS&PWD 2002) (“The Commission's overarching purpose behind
adopting the substantial service standard for renewal was to ensure that the spectrum was being used to provide
service to the public.”).
46 Extension and Waiver Request at 5-6.
47 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.955(a)(2).
48 Id.
7

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1638

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES

19.
Loralen has failed to justify an extension of time to meet the substantial service deadline
for its LMDS stations or to justify a waiver of the June 1, 2012 deadline for establishing substantial
service. We therefore deny the Extension and Waiver Request. Accordingly, Loralen’s licenses to
operate LMDS Stations WPOJ997 and WPOJ998 automatically terminated, by operation of Commission
rule, as of June 1, 2012.
20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, and Sections 1.925 and 1.946 of the Commission’s Rules,
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.925, 1.946, that the request for waivers and the applications for extension of time to
demonstrate substantial service (File Nos. 0005220539 and 0005220561) filed by Loralen Corp LLC on
May 16, 2012 ARE DENIED.
21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.955(a)(2) of the
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.955(a)(2), that the Universal Licensing System SHALL BE
UPDATED to reflect that the licenses issued to Loralen Corp LLC for Local Multipoint Distribution
Service Stations WPOJ997 and WPOJ998 TERMINATED as of June 1, 2012.
22.
These actions are taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of
the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
John J. Schauble
Deputy Chief, Broadband Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
8

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.