FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,068
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
detennination that Indiana was responsible for ensuring that certain subscriber radios were supplied with
both the pre-rebanding and post-rebanding frequencies before the radios were deployed to the fields
3. After a mediation that began in 2006, Indiana and Sprint executed a Frequency
Reconfiguration Agreement (FRA) that the 800 MHz Transition Administrator (TA) approved on June
16, 2009.6 The FRA covers the State's agreed-upon rebanding costs of approximately $27 million. After
the FRA was executed, however, the State submitted change order requests, asserting that Sprint was
responsible for paying the following additional costs:
* $164,907.13 for retuning the 1,073 new radios that the State deployed without
programming replacement frequencies into the radios;7
* $100,000 for its vendor to file license applications for the State's reconfigured
4. The Indiana Order disallowed the $164,907.13 claim for retuning radios because the
Bureau found that Sprint and Indiana had agreed that the radios at issue were to be supplied with both the
pre-rebanding and post-rebanding channels installed in them, thereby obviating the need to retune the
radios in the field.9 Indiana, however, did not honor that agreement and the radios at issue were deployed
with only the pre-rebanding channels installed. The Indiana Order held that Indiana's failure to supply
the radios with both sets of channels installed was inconsistent with the Commission's minimum
necessary cost rebanding standard, and found that Sprint was not liable for paying the $164,907.13 cost of
giving the radios a "first touch."'0
5. The Bureau also disallowed the $100,000 fee for filing license applications because it
found the fee was excessive and therefore inconsistent with the Commission's minimum necessary cost
standard. The Bureau agreed with Sprint, which had provided a quote from the Enterprise Wireless
Association (EWA) to prepare and file the license applications for $51,590, that a lower cost alternative
was available for this essentially clerical function."
6. Indiana's Petition fails to conform to the Commission's rules and applicable precedent
governing petitions for reconsideration. Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules,'- and the cases
applying that rule section, dictate that we should not consider arguments and allegations already made in
prior pleadings." Section 1.106 and interpreting cases, also instruct us not to consider new matter raised
s Indiana Order 26 FCC Red at 1029-30 24.
6 TA Mediator Recommended Resolution at 3.
s Id. The State sought $100,000, while Sprint offered $5 1.590, resulting in a disputed amount of $48,410.
9 Indiana Order 26 FCC Red at 1030 125
1o Indiana Order 26 FCC Rcd at 1029-30 24. In industry usage, a "touch" refers to the modification of a mobile or
portable radio as part of the rebanding process, typically through installation of software to change the radio's
channel configuration. Typically, the "touch" is made in the field - as opposed to the factory - requiring the user of
the radio to deliver it to a central location.
" Indiana Order 26 FCC Red at 1032 33
'1 47 C.F.R. 1.106.
3 Kin Shaw Wong, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Red 6987, 6988 (1997) (Reconsideration petitions
that merely parrot previously rejected claims are subject to summary dismissal).
Federal Communications Commission
Here’s what’s next.
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 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011, book, April 2011; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52169/m1/240/: accessed October 22, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.