Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Pangasa Pleadings Against AT&T, CenturyTel Transaction Dismissed.

Download Options

Released: December 18, 2012

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-2039

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

Application of AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
)
ULS File No. 0005337520
and CenturyTel Broadband Wireless, LLC
)
)

For Consent To Assign a Lower 700 MHz Band
)
and AWS-1 Licenses
)

ORDER

Adopted: December 18, 2012

Released: December 18, 2012
By the Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
1.
In this Order, we dismiss for lack of party-in-interest standing a Petition to Conditionally
Approve or Deny (“Petition”)1 filed by Mr. Maneesh Pangasa against the application2 of AT&T Mobility
Spectrum LLC (“AT&T Mobility”), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Inc. (collectively,
“AT&T”), and CenturyTel Broadband Wireless, LLC (“CenturyTel” and together with AT&T Mobility,
the “Applicants”) to assign 51 Lower 700 MHz Band B Block spectrum licenses, four Lower 700 MHz
Band C Block spectrum licenses, and six Advanced Wireless Service (“AWS-1”) spectrum licenses from
CenturyTel to AT&T Mobility.

I.

BACKGROUND

2.
On August 6, 2012, AT&T Mobility and CenturyTel filed the Application pursuant to
section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Communications Act”),3 seeking
approval to assign the Lower 700 MHz Band and AWS-1 spectrum licenses. The Commission released a
Public Notice on September 11, 2012, seeking comment on the Application.4 In response to the Comment
Public Notice
, Mr. Pangasa submitted the a number of documents (“Pangasa Pleadings”), including the
Petition, citing concerns about AT&T’s spectrum purchases in the aggregate and asking that approval of
the transaction be conditioned on separation of AT&T’s wireless and wireline operations.5 The pleadings
on their face do not identify Mr. Pangasa as the filer or explain how the instant transaction could harm
Mr. Pangasa specifically.
3.
The Applicants filed a Joint Opposition and Motion to Dismiss on October 5, 2012, in
which they assert that Mr. Pangasa fails to meet the criteria for establishing party-in-interest standing and

1 Petition to Conditionally Approve or Deny of Maneesh Pangasa, filed Sept. 12, 2012.
2 ULS File No. 0005337520 (the “Application”).
3 47 U.S.C. § 310(d).
4 AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC and CenturyTel Broadband Wireless, LLC Seek FCC Consent to the Assignment
of Lower 700 MHz Band and AWS-1 Licenses, ULS File No. 0005337520, Public Notice, DA 12-1479 (rel. Sept.
11, 2012) (“Comment Public Notice”).
5 See Petition at 3-10.

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-2039

accordingly urge dismissal of the Petition.6 The Applicants also note that the Petition contains a number
of procedural defects7 and that the Petition was not served upon either AT&T or CenturyTel in
contravention of section 1.939(c) of the Commission’s rules.8 Mr. Pangasa did not respond to the Joint
Opposition.

II.

DISCUSSION

4.
The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission’s rules require that
a petition to deny must contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that the petitioner is a party
in interest.9 To establish party-in-interest standing, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate
that grant of the subject application would cause it to suffer a direct injury.10 In addition, a petitioner
must demonstrate a causal link between the claimed injury and the challenged action: it must demonstrate
that the injury can be traced to the challenged action and that the injury would be prevented or redressed
by the relief requested.11 The Commission repeatedly has upheld these standards.12
5.
We find that neither the Pangasa Petition nor any of his various subsequent filings asserts
specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that Mr. Pangasa is a party in interest with respect to this
transaction. Instead, Mr. Pangasa’s submissions raise general concerns about spectrum aggregation and
various wireless industry practices. The Petition does not explain how Mr. Pangasa might be injured by
an assignment of spectrum to AT&T, much less how any such injury might be redressed by denying or
conditioning the Application. We accordingly dismiss the Pangasa Pleadings, including the Petition, for
lack of party-in-interest standing.13

III.

ORDERING CLAUSES

6.
Accordingly, having reviewed the Application and the record in this matter, IT IS
ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and (j), 309, and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), (j), 309, 310(d), the Petition and Pleadings filed by Maneesh Pangasa are
hereby DISMISSED for the reasons stated herein.
7.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, that the staff of the Mobility Division of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau SHALL PROCESS the following application consistent with this Order and
the Commission’s rules: ULS File No. 0005337520.

6 Joint Opposition and Motion to Dismiss of AT&T Inc. and CenturyTel Broadband Wireless, LLC, filed Oct. 5,
2012 (“Joint Opposition”).
7 The alleged defects include failure to provide the filer’s name, street address, telephone number, or signature.
Joint Opposition at 5-6.
8 Id. at 6; see 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(c).
9 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(d).
10 Applications of T-Mobile License, LLC, AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
For Consent to Assign AWS-1 Licenses, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 4124, 4126 ¶ 6 (WTB 2012) (“T-Mobile-AT&T
Order
”); Wireless Co., L.P., Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13233, 13235 ¶ 7 (WTB 1995) (“Wireless Co.”), citing Sierra Club
v
. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733 (1972).
11 T-Mobile-AT&T Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 4126 ¶ 6; Wireless Co., 10 FCC Rcd at 13235 ¶ 7.
12 See, e.g., Application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC and D&E Investments, Inc. For Consent to Assign
Lower 700 MHz C Block Licenses, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 1669, 1670-71 ¶ 6 (WTB 2012).
13 In this instance, because we find that the Petition does not demonstrate the requisite party-in-interest standing, we
need not decide whether it should be dismissed based on the procedural deficiencies alleged by the Applicants.

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-2039

8.
This action is 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
Katherine M. Harris
Deputy Chief, Mobility Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

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.