FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 18, Pages 14770 to 15765, November 26 - December 13, 2012 Page: 14,853
ix, 14770-15765 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
immediately for substantially the same facilities."62 Not only did the Commission revoke all of Kay's and
Sobel's 800 MHz licenses, the Commission dismissed and denied Sobel's pending applications and
finder's preference requests for 800 MHz facilities. In 2010, in affirming the denial of the Motion to
Modify Sanctions, the Commission explicitly directed the Enforcement Bureau to ensure Kay and Sobel
were not operating on "their formerly licensed frequencies, and if the Bureau determines otherwise, to
take immediate action, including forfeiture proceedings and/or proceedings to revoke any other licenses
held by Kay or Sobel.'"63
25. In this case, the Commission clearly intended, in its revocation proceedings, to deprive
Kay and Sobel, at the time the applications at issue in this proceeding were filed, of the interests they held
in the 800 MHz band, including licenses, applications, and finder's preference requests. Nextel argues
that granting the applications would effectively allow Kay and Sobel to retain authorizations to operate
stations under the guise of add-on repeater stations "on the very 800 MHz channels and at the same
locations" authorized under the revoked licenses, and that "[s]uch a result would make a nullity of the
Commission's lengthy revocation proceeding[s] and open the door for further litigation relating to the use
of the subject 800 MHz channels."64 We agree. Grant of the applications would effectively allow Kay
and Sobel to retain the licensing authority revoked by the Commission, nullify any intent to deter
misconduct, and further litigate matters already well settled. Accordingly, we grant Nextel's petition and
dismiss the 113 applications filed by Comm Systems, MDS, Oak Lands, and Third District as defective.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r) and 309(d) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), 309(d) and Sections 0.131, 0.331,
and 1.939, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.131, 0.331, 1.939, the Petition to Dismiss or Deny,
filed by Nextel Communications, Inc. on June 2, 2005, IS GRANTED.
27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and Sections 0.131, 0.331, 1.934,
and 1.937 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.131, 0.331, 1.934, 1.937, the applications File
Nos. 0002144710, 0002145861, 0002145865, 0002145868, 0002145871, 0002145874, 0002145877,
0002145881, 0002145884, 0002145888, 0002145891, 0002145895, 0002145898, 0002145901,
0002145904, 0002145907, 0002145910, 0002145913, 0002145917, 0002145920, 0002146009,
0002146012, 0002146015, 0002146019, 0002146027, 0002146030, 0002146036, 0002146176,
0002146179, 0002146500, 0002146504 filed by Comm Systems, LLC on May 2 and 3, 2005, ARE
DISMISSED as defective.
28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and Sections 0.131, 0.331, 1.934,
and 1.937 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.131, 0.331, 1.934, 1.937, the applications File Nos.
0002151735, 0002151737, 0002151739, 0002151740, 0002151741, 0002151742, 0002151743,
62 Section 1.937 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 7192, 5 (stating that "the goal of Section 1.937 - the attainment
of sound administrative process by preventing the relitigation of decided matters - would be easily circumvented if
applicants were free to refile for the same relief immediately after being denied such relief") (citing Salter
Broadcasting Co. et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 F.C.C. 2d 809, 813, 10 (1967)).
63 June 2 Order, 25 FCC Rcd at7642, 10. In fact, the Commission stated that "[i]t is our understanding that in the
five years since we ordered that their licenses be revoked, Kay and Sobel have continued to earn substantial license-
related fees. That is enough of a windfall; this matter must now come to an end. Kay and Sobel forfeited their
opportunity to hold the licenses at issue when they violated our rules, and it is high time that they face the
consequences of their actions." Id.
64 Petition at 4.14853
Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1904
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 18, Pages 14770 to 15765, November 26 - December 13, 2012, book, December 2012; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc171133/m1/99/: accessed March 29, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.