WPC 2BBVR@Z3|I n9B8*XB7  PT6QP"5@^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====IK=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\\I\=\===\QzQf3fKz\z\\zpGpK\G\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7t=eeee|oo.Ij|2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.................................=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic..=\f\\=\=....==ff@\=G=z..f.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Ie77=j`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\Q\HP LaserJet 4M(PCL) (Additional)HPLAS4M.WRSC\  P6Q,,,&]P2 t@^X  e4X01Í ÍX01Í Í Њ#XP7  PT6QWXP#"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd Mn9B8*XB7  PT6QP DPC2XWXP7  PT6QXP 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)X01Í Í3|I 2R@8 Zx @ @"5@^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888CE8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo8oE]A]AN:*LS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82t8[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*********************************8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv**8SJSS8]8****88JJ:S8A8x**x*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC[228`L*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 4M(PCL) (Additional)HPLAS4M.WRSC\  P6Q,,,&]PTimes New RomanTimes New Roman (Bold)Times New Roman (Italic)"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2@@w@"5@^.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc.====IK=\\QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\\QQzQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\\I\=\===\G\p3pK\\\z=zKfGfGN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7==QQ\==\\=Q=7t=eeeegoo.Ijg2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.................................=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc..=\Q\\=f=....==QQ@\=G=...=\\\\%\=3\g=\Ie77=jS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\\\ y_' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)X01Í ÍX01Í Í Ҋ#XP7  PT6QWXP##&I7  PT6Q&P#"5@^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_.====IK=\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\QQQzQzQzQ\\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\fz3zKff\QQfGfGN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7t=eeeeioo.Iji2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.................................=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_..=\\\\=f=....==\\@\=G=...=\\\\(\=7\i=\Ie77=jc.=7=\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffff\f"5@^%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N'27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>mBBs,?>[N6Wms[77UUUH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<77777772v)pkkza8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2@!vt2  a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2$ r! " " h#a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2' O$%%&a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2*'()*Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2~-*o+,,a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   23-6.3./a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:+ ?,?Right Par[1]?^?bRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers )2( )?t )B)8@  Right Par[2]?^?bRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers  )2( )?t )B*A@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]?^?bDocument StyleNF2?? )2( )?t )B+0     Right Par[3]?^?bRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers) )2( )?t )B,J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2aC-w@.$A/A0BRight Par[4]?^?bRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers7 )2( )?t )B-S` ` `  @  Right Par[5]?^?bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersE )2( )?t )B.\ ` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]?^?bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS )2( )?t )B/e!"` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]?^?bRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersa )2( )?t )B0n#$` ` `  hhh@  2E1C2}dD3D4iERight Par[8]?^?bRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberso )2( )?t )B1w%&` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Technical[1]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B2$9: Technical[2]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B3/;< Technical[3]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B4:=> 2H5.F6F7uG8)HTechnical[4]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B5E?@ Technical[5]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B6PAB Technical[6]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B7[CD Technical[7]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B8fEF 2K9I:I;J<#KTechnical[8]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B9qGH Document[1]?^?bDocument StyleNF2??  )2( )?t )B:FIJ   ׃  1S&?%?^?bTechnical Document Style?? )2( )?t )B;&KL  . 2S&?&?^?bTechnical Document Style??% )2( )?t )B<&MN  . 2ON=K>vL? M@M3S&?'?^?bTechnical Document Style??3 )2( )?t )B=*OP    4S&?(?^?bTechnical Document Style??A )2( )?t )B>'QR   5S&?)?^?bTechnical Document Style??O )2( )?t )B?&ST   6S&?*?^?bTechnical Document Style??] )2( )?t )B@4U$V     2PANBOCODEP7S&?+?^?bTechnical Document Style??k )2( )?t )BA&WX  . 8S&?,?^?bTechnical Document Style??y )2( )?t )BB&YZ  . 9S&?3?^?bDocument StyleNF2?? )2( )?t )BCFmn   ׃  10S&?4?^?bDocument StyleNF2?? )2( )?t )BD*op    2RE QFqQGeRHeuR11S&?5?^?bDocument StyleNF2?? )2( )?t )BE0q r    12S&?6?^?bDocument StyleNF2?? )2( )?t )BFs t . 13S&?7?^?bDocument StyleNF2?? )2( )?t )BG uv 14S&?8?^?bDocument StyleNF2??! )2( )?t )BH wx 2aIp SJp|SKSLv |U15S&?9?^?bDocument StyleNF2??/ )2( )?t )BIyz` ` ` 16S&?:?^?bDocument StyleNF2??= )2( )?t )BJ{|` ` ` FCC/5+x(:twFCC Letterhead 8/5+RK+W Pw'/5f—+W bK/0' __ #:\  PP#*BEFORE THE *#\  PP#Federal Communications Commission#:\  PP#MЃ *WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554  #:\  PP#MACNormalL;     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#2#eMo$bNbOcP~cFootnoteMÍčfootnote tex#N'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#referenceO;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1P&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#2iQiUeR^fS hT)iheader2QI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3RF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileSW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentTiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2pUljVjWlXnDefault Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontU toc 1toc 1V` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2W` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3X` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2wYqZ2s[Pu\vnwtoc 4toc 4Y` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5Z` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6[` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7\ 2]x^4z_R|`p~toc 8toc 8]` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9^` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1_` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2`` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2,abvނclTdltoa headingtoa headinga` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionb _Equation Caption_Equation Captionc _Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1d 2el^fʄgRh_Equation Caption2_Equation Caption2e 17-t o,2P68 GW0=(" o,b2**"(-t o,>Ef/;< 18-t o,3P68 GW0=(" o,b3**"(-t o,>Eg:=> 19-t o,4P68 GW0=(" o,b4**"(-t o,>EhE?@ 2ij^klш20-t o,5P68 GW0=(" o,b5**"(-t o,>EiPAB 21-t o,6P68 GW0=(" o,b6**"(-t o,>Ej[CD 22-t o,7P68 GW0=(" o,b7**"(-t o,>EkfEF 23-t o,8P68 GW0=(" o,b8**"(-t o,>ElqGH 2-m͉no p24-t o,9P68Document Style=(" o,b9**"(-t o,>EmFIJ *  ׃  25-t o,:P68Technical Document Style o,b:**"(-t o,>En&KL  . 26-t o,;P68Technical Document Style o,b;**"(-t o,>Eo&MN  . 27-t o,<P68Technical Document Style o,b<**"(-t o,>Ep*OP    2q_rst828-t o,=P68Technical Document Style o,b=**"(-t o,>Eq'QR   29-t o,>P68Technical Document Style o,b>**"(-t o,>Er&ST   30-t o,?P68Technical Document Style o,b?**"(-t o,>Es4U$V     31-t o,@P68Technical Document Style o,b@**"(-t o,>Et&WX  . 2Vuvtw.x32-t o,AP68Technical Document Style o,bA**"(-t o,>Eu&YZ  . 33-t o,HP68Document Style=(" o,bH**"(-t o,>EvFmn *  ׃  34-t o,IP68Document Style=(" o,bI**"(-t o,>Ew*op    35-t o,JP68Document Style=(" o,bJ**"(-t o,>Ex0q r    23yqze{e^|pÒ36-t o,KP68Document Style=(" o,bK**"(-t o,>Eys t . 37-t o,LP68Document Style=(" o,bL**"(-t o,>Ez uv 38-t o,MP68Document Style=(" o,bM**"(-t o,>E{ wx 39-t o,NP68Document Style=(" o,bN**"(-t o,>E|yz` ` ` 2r}pe~Փz40-t o,OP68Document Style=(" o,bO**"(-t o,>E}{|` ` ` Format DownlP68Format Downloaded Document,be**"(-t o,>E~U XX    X\ #d6X@7@#Default ParaP68Default Paragraph Font o,bh**"(-t o,>EPP_Equation CaP68_Equation Caption" o,bv**"(-t o,>EPP2.Z@42-t o,wP68_Equation Caption1" o,bw**"(-t o,>EPP43-t o,xP68_Equation Caption2" o,bx**"(-t o,>EPP >n9B8*X6B7  PT6QP ?DPC2XWXP7  PT6QXP @y>I=.X&I7  PT6Q&P, Ay>N=.X&N7  pTQ& BI%,%X!J,7  PT6QJP CB"(!X,(7  PT6Q,Pj n9C8*X'<C7  xTQX"5@^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!()!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2HH2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2==)H2H2H2YHC!C)8'8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!t!77778c<<!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,2222222722222222@`\"5@^*8FSS$88Sq*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88qqqSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*8888CE8SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS8S888SJoJ].]EoSoSxSofAfESASAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}288]]S88SS8]82t8[[[[qee*C`q.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*********************************8FSS$88Sq*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88qqqSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv**8S]SS8S8****88]]:S8A8o**]*ASSSS.S8.Sq8SC[228`W*824S}}}Sffffffoffff8888xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS \n9B8*X6B7  PT6QP ]DPC2XWXP7  PT6QXP ^y>I=.X&I7  PT6Q&P, _y>N=.X&N7  pTQ& `I%,%X!J,7  PT6QJP aB"(!X,(7  PT6Q,Pj bn9C8*X'<C7  xTQXj y>I=.X',&I7  xTQ&X8Format Downloaded Document,be**"(-t o,>E~U XX   X\ #d6X@7@#Default Para y_' X   ( y_' #&I7  PT6Q&P#Federal Communications Commission`(#kDA 99802 ă   yx}dddy (Qb Before the Federal Communications Commission  y_'&2Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter of Applications of) )  y_'NEXTBAND COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C.)FCC File No. 0000000114 ) For Authority to Construct and Operate) Local Multipoint Distribution Services In) Multiple Basic Trading Areas)  y_i 'M ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION \  y_ 'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:l5 nZ'ԍId. at 1 n.1, 2.>  y_:' "/3. On March 9, 1998, prior to the conclusion of the LMDS auction, Thomas Gutierrez and David  xLaFuria of the law firm of Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez and Sachs sent the Bureau a letter (Gutierrez Letter)  xchallenging and asking for an immediate ruling on Baker Creek's eligibility for a 45% very small business  y_' xQcreditX@l5 nZ%'ԍSee 49 C.F.R.  101.1107, 101.1112.X for the LMDS auction.Xl5 nZ'' x ԍLetter from Thomas Gutierrez and David LaFuria, Law Firm of Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez and Sachs, to Daniel  xx Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Re: Request  x3 for Immediate Ruling On Eligibility for Discount of Baker Creek Communications, L.P., LMDS Auction (dated"(, * *(" Mar.9, 1998) (Gutierrez Letter).  The Gutierrez Letter did not state on whose behalf it was sent. The letter"X, * *,,"  xended by saying, "Out of respect for the Commission's anticollusion rules, we determined not to approach  x^Baker Creek directly, but rather to bring this [matter] to your attention promptly." Despite that statement,  x&the Gutierrez Letter showed that a copy was sent to J. Craven, Esq., a person listed on Baker Creek's  xZshortform application as an associate of Baker Creek's principal; moreover, Craven was the only "cc"  y_4'listed on the letter.74X nZ,'ԍId. at 5.7  y_' "4. On March 19, 1998, Baker Creek opposed the Gutierrez Letter by asking that such request be  y_' x7summarily denied.]X nZ# ' x ԍLetter from Leonard J. Kennedy, Counsel for Baker Creek Communications, L.P. to Daniel Phythyon, Chief,  xk Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC Re: Request for Immediate Ruling On Eligibility for Discount of Baker Creek Communications, L.P., LMDS Auction (dated Mar. 19, 1998).] Baker Creek stated that the Gutierrez Letter offered no facts but only allegations, and  x7that under the Commission's rules the proper time for commenting on a party's status as a small business  y_5' x was after the auction was completed.15 nZ'ԍId.1 Baker Creek also stated that by sending a copy of the letter to  x@Craven, the party behind the Gutierrez Letter wanted Baker Creek to be made aware of it, and that the  xgBureau might want to investigate whether the Gutierrez Letter was intended to influence Baker Creek's  xMbidding by serving as a threat of opposition against Baker Creek's longform applications should Baker  y_i 'Creek win any licenses.1 i  nZ'ԍId.1  y_ ' "5. On March 27, 1998, the Bureau's Auctions and Industry Analysis Division denied the request  y_ ' xmade in the Gutierrez Letter for an immediate ruling on Baker Creek's very small business status.  (  nZ' x ԍLetter to Thomas Gutierrez, Law Firm of Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez and Sachs, from Kathleen O'Brien Ham, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (dated Mar. 27, 1998). The  x Auctions and Industry Analysis Division stated that absent substantiated evidence of wrongdoing, the  xallegations in the letter were more properly raised after the auction's winning bidders had filed their long y_7'form applications.1 7  nZW'ԍId.1  y_' "E6. As winning bidders in the LMDS auction, Baker Creek and Nextband timely filed their long y_' xform applications which were accepted for filing on April 16, 1998.  nZN!' x ԍPublic Notice, Local Multipoint Distribution Service Applications Accepted for Filing, Auction # 17, DA 98740, 13 FCC Rcd 10947 (1998). Nextband filed a Petition to Deny  x&against Baker Creek's applications on May 18, 1998, the last day on which Petitions to Deny could be  xfiled. Nextband made arguments similar to those raised in the Gutierrez Letter that Baker Creek was not  y_' x}eligible for the 45% very small business credit. Xh nZ &' xQ ԍNextband Petition to Dismiss or Deny on in the Alternative to Institute an Inquiry (filed May 18, 1998). See  nZ&' x also Baker Creek Communications, L.P., For Authority to Construct and Operate Local Multipoint Distribution  nZ'' x Services in Multiple Basic Trading Areas, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 18709 (PSPWD 1998)"' ,l(l('"  x* (granting petition in part; finding that Baker Creek was not eligible for bidding credit; and conditionally granting Baker Creek's licenses). On June 17, 1998, the Bureau's Public Safety and"  ,l(l(,,"  y_' x Private Wireless Division conditionally granted Nextband's LMDS license applications.  nZ' x& ԍSee Public Notice, FCC Announces the Conditional Grant of 199 Local Multipoint Distribution Service Licenses, Auction Event No. 17, DA 981169 (released June 17, 1998). Baker Creek  y_' xfiled a petition for reconsideration regarding the granting of the licenses on July 17, 1998.x nZ' xg ԍBaker Creek Petition. Nextband filed an Opposition to Baker Creek's petition on July 30, 1998, and Baker Creek filed a Reply on August 10, 1998. Baker Creek  xxargues that Nextband may have been responsible for the filing of the Gutierrez Letter. Baker Creek claims  x7that by sending a copy of the letter to J. Craven, an associate of Baker Creek's principal, the party behind  xthe Gutierrez Letter obviously wanted Baker Creek to be made aware of it. Therefore, Baker Creek  xargues, the purpose of the Gutierrez Letter may have been to intimidate Baker Creek or otherwise  xinfluence its bidding, and that if Nextband was involved in sending the letter, Nextband thereby violated  xthe Commission's anticollusion rules. Baker Creek asks the Bureau to investigate and rescind or  y_h' xotherwise sanction Nextband if the allegations are true.Bh nZ'ԍBaker Creek Petition at 2.B Baker Creek states that it is raising this argument  xfor the first time in a petition for reconsideration because it did not know that Nextband may have been  x^the party responsible for the Gutierrez Letter until Nextband filed its Petition to Deny against Baker Creek,  y_'on the last day petitions to deny could be filed.7`  nZ'ԍId. at 4.7  y_i 'F III. DISCUSSION ă   y_ ' "87. Before we address the merits of Baker Creek's petition, we must determine if it satisfies the  xCommission's procedural requirements. To file a request for reconsideration, a person must either be a  xparty to the proceeding or be one whose interests are adversely affected by the action in question, in which  y_j' xcase it shall show why it was not possible to participate in the proceeding earlier.Bj  nZ'ԍ47 C.F.R. 1.106(b). B Baker Creek did not  xpfile a petition to deny against Nextband's applications. Thus, Baker Creek's status as a party to this  y_' x@proceeding is not established by its prior participation herein.  nZ$' xD ԍSan Luis Obispo Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order, 11 FCC Rcd 9616, 9617 (1996). We find, however, that Baker Creek is  xa person whose interests are adversely affected by a Commission action. As a participant in the LMDS  xauction that competed against Nextband for at least some of the licenses at issue, Baker Creek's interests  x7are adversely affected by the granting of Nextband's licenses. We conclude therefore that it has standing  y_8'to complain of the grant of the licenses.UX8 nZ#' x  ԍCf. Baker Creek Communications, L.P., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 18709, 18710 n.1  x (1998) (Nextband, as a participant in the LMDS auction eligible to bid on markets won by Baker Creek, had standing to file petition to deny against Baker Creek).U ",l(l(,,"Ԍ y_' "E8. Baker Creek also has shown why it did not participate in the proceeding earlier (i.e., did not  xfile a petition to deny against Nextband). Baker Creek states that it did not learn that Nextband may have  xviolated the Commission's prohibition against collusion until after the deadline for filing petitions to deny  xhad passed, when Baker Creek received Nextband's petition to deny against Baker Creek's LMDS  y_4' x applications repeating the allegations made in the Gutierrez Letter.B4 nZ'ԍBaker Creek Petition at 4.B We agree that there is little Baker  xCreek could have done before then to determine on whose behalf the Gutierrez Letter was sent. For  xexample, a review of the LMDS shortform applications shows that the law firm of Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez  y_' xand Sachs served as the contact person for a number of participants in the LMDS auction.X nZ ' x ԍThe LMDS shortform applications were available to the general public in the Bureau's reference room and were also available online to participants in the LMDS auction through the auction bidding software.  Moreover,  xthe contact person listed by Nextband was not someone at the Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez and Sachs law firm.  xDThus, a review of the LMDS shortform applications would not have been informative as to whom Baker  x@Creek should complain nor would it have caused Baker Creek to direct such a complaint to Nextband.  xFurther, while presumably Nextband and Mr. Gutierrez know whether Nextband is the party on whose  xbehalf the Gutierrez Letter was sent, Nextband has neither confirmed nor denied that the letter was sent  xon its behalf and Mr. Gutierrez has not stated on whose behalf he sent the letter. Accordingly, we find  xthat Baker Creek has adequately explained why it was not possible to participate in this proceeding earlier and we will consider Baker Creeks' request for reconsideration on the merits.  y_ ' "9. Baker Creek asks that the Division reconsider the grant of licenses to Nextband, i.e., that it  xdeny Nextband's license applications. Section 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,  x@requires parties filing petitions to deny license applications to present allegations that, if true, would be  y_' xtprima facie inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.H nZT'ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  309(d).H The petitioner bears the  y_' xburden of pleading sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case and these facts must be supported by  y_' xan affidavit from persons with personal knowledge.e@ nZ~'ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(2); 47 C.F.R.  1.2108(b).e Allegations that are conclusory or based simply on  y_k' xgbelief are not sufficient to pass this test.Xk nZ' xM ԍSee Mercury PCS II, LLC For Facilities in the Broadband Personal Communications Systems in the D, E,  nZ' xx and F Blocks, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Mercury PCS II, LLC), 12 FCC Rcd 17970, 18100 (1997)  nZk'(citing Gencom, Inc. v. FCC, 832 F.2d 171, 181 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). As discussed herein, we will apply these standards to Baker  y_8'Creek's Petition.DX8  nZ' x& ԍWWORTV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion & Order, 6 FCC Rcd 6569, 6570 n.7 (1991); KRPL, Inc., Letter,  nZ ' x 5 FCC Rcd 2823, 2824 (1990); see also Univision Holdings, Inc., Memorandum Opinion & Order, 8 FCC Rcd 3931, 3931 (1993).D  y_' " 10. Based upon our review of the record in this proceeding, we find that Baker Creek has failed  y_' xto make a prima facie showing that grant of the subject applications to Nextband is inconsistent with the  xpublic interest, convenience and necessity. In this connection, we note that Baker Creek has offered  y_9' xnothing but supposition to support its Petition. Baker Creek argues that Nextband might be responsible  xfor sending a letter to the Commission during the LMDS auction challenging Baker Creek's eligibility for  xMsmall business credits. Further, it contends that because a copy of the letter was sent to one of Baker",l(l(,,~"  y_' xCreek's associates, the purpose of the letter might have been to intimidate it and affect its bidding (Baker  y_' xtCreek claims that the letter was sent at a "critical stage" of the auction).B nZ5'ԍBaker Creek Petition at 4.B Baker Creek then posits that  y_' xgif Nextband was involved, its actions constitute a clear and willful violation of the Commission's Rules  xprohibiting collusion and the Commission should determine whether that action warrants further  y_4' xxinvestigation and sanctions.H4X nZ,'ԍId. at 2 (emphasis added).H The only supporting facts presented in the Petition are that the lawyers who  x7sent the Gutierrez Letter also represent Nextband and that the allegations raised in the Gutierrez Letter are  y_' xthe same as those raised in the Petition to Deny Nextband filed against Baker Creek.: nZV 'ԍId. at 2, 5.: As to the first  xpoint, as stated above, the Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez and Sachs law firm represented at least a dozen other  xparticipants in the LMDS auction. As a result, it is at least plausible that the Gutierrez Letter was written  xIon behalf of another LMDS auction participant, and Baker Creek has not presented evidence to the  x3contrary. As to the second point, it was well known at the time of the LMDS auction that the Bureau  xwould be scrutinizing bidders' eligibility for small business credits. Thus, we are not persuaded that the  xfact that both the Gutierrez Letter and Nextband's petition to deny raised this issue necessarily indicates  xtthat Nextband was the entity on whose behalf the letter was submitted. Thus, we conclude that Baker Creek's lack of substantiation of its charge against Nextband requires dismissal of its Petition.  y_ ' " 11. In addition, we find that the sending of the Gutierrez Letter did not violate Section 1.2105(c)  y_ ' xof the Commission's Rules.A x nZ'ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.2105(c).A As a general matter, Section 1.2105(c) prohibits competing bidders from  xdiscussing or otherwise communicating the substance of their bids or bidding strategies once they have  y_7' xfiled their shortform (FCC Form 175) applications. 7 nZ' xx ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.2105(c)(1) states that, except as otherwise provided, "after the filing of shortform applications,  x all applicants are prohibited from cooperating, collaborating, discussing or disclosing in any manner the substance  x of their bids or bidding strategies, or discussing or negotiating settlement agreements, with other applicants until after the high bidder makes the required down payment . . . ."  Baker Creek has not demonstrated that the Gutierrez  xLetter did so. As Baker Creek states, at the time it received a copy of the Gutierrez Letter, it did not  y_' xknow on whose behalf the letter was sent.   nZa' x ԍBaker Creek did not suspect Nextband until Nextband filed its Petition to Deny against Baker Creek, and it  nZ)'still is not certain that Nextband is responsible. See Petition at 2, 45. Therefore, assuming that the Gutierrez Letter was, in fact,  xsent on behalf of Nextband, the letter could not have been an attempt on Nextband's part at reaching an  x agreement as to bidding with Baker Creek because Baker Creek did not know against whom it should  xforebear bidding in order to reach an accommodation. Nor did the Gutierrez Letter offer Baker Creek a  y_' xquid pro quo for Baker Creek had nothing to gain by conceding to what it claims was the letter's implicit  xZthreat. Finally, the Gutierrez Letter did not communicate the substance of the sender's bids or bidding  xstrategy. Baker Creek has failed to demonstrate how the sending of the letter related any information  y_l' x3regarding the sender's bidding intentions.a!lH  nZT%'ԍSee Mercury PCS II, LLC, 12 FCC Rcd at 17978.a We therefore find that the sending of the letter was not an  xMattempt at collusion on behalf of the sender and did not violate Section 1.2105(c) of the Commission's Rules."!,l(l(,,"Ԍ y_'ԙw) IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  " 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules,  x47C.F.R.  1.106, the Petition for Reconsideration of Baker Creek Communications, L.P. filed on July 17, 1998, IS DISMISSED.  "+ 13. 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. `B(#FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  @ D'wana R. Terry  @ Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division  y_j' @ Wireless Telecommunications Bureau