FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,170
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
3. In the Recommended Resolution, the Transition Administrator Mediator (TA Mediator)
found that TeleBEEPER had negotiated in good faith in the initial stages of the negotiations with Sprint,
but not thereafter. The TA Mediator proposed, therefore, that TeleBEEPER be paid some of its costs, i.e..
those that had been incurred before TeleBEEPER began negotiating in bad faith. Under the TA
Mediator's analysis, TeleBEEPER was entitled to $13,051.39 of its claimed $142,544.92 in costs. The
Bureau, however, disagreed, finding that it was not required to apportion costs into good faith and bad
faith components, thereby to award TeIeBEEPER its "good faith expenses." It held, therefore, that,
TeleBEEPER, having failed to act in good faith, was entitled to none of its claimed costs.
4. TeleBEEPER advances four arguments in its Petition.
* The Bureau failed to consider that significant amounts of TeleBEEPER's expenses were
incurred because of alleged delays by Sprint in handling TeleBEEPER's requests for payment
of its expenses. According to TeleBEEPER, Sprint unreasonably required additional
information when TeleBEEPER submitted a cost claim, even when Sprint previously had
indicated that it would pay the claim.6
* TeleBEEPER incurred expense when Sprint delayed consummating disaggregation of
TeleBEEPER's spectrum to Sprint.'
* It was not bad faith for it "to have declined to continue its efforts, or to have sought complete
relief during the mediation process."
* The Bureau erred in "failing to acknowledge or credit TeleBEEPER's diligent attempts to
comply with Sprint Nextel's requirements and complete the subject rebanding during that
extended [two year] period of time."'
TeleBEEPER claims, therefore, that the Bureau "entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the
problem," rendering its decision arbitrary and capricious under the Supreme Court's decision in Motor
Vehicles Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual. Auto Insurance Co.9
5. Our analysis of TeleBEEPER's Petition proceeds according to a well-established, three-
pronged standard. First, petitions for reconsideration must show a material error in the original order.'0
Second, they may not raise matters that the petitioner, with diligence, could have raised at its last
opportunity to do so." Third, a petition for reconsideration will not be considered if it merely repeats
matters that have been raised before and considered, but rejected, in earlier decisions.'2
6 Petition at 2.
9 Id. at 3. TeleBEEPER measures the two years as the time that expired between the date that TeleBEEPER signed
the FRA and the date that the last deadline passed for the parties to consummate the disaggregation of
TeleBEEPER's spectrum to Sprint. Id.
9 Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass fn v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (Motor Vehicles).
10 47 C.F.R a 1.106; WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'dsum nom.,
Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 967 (1966).
12 Kin Shaw Wong, Memorandum Opinion anrd 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/m1/342/: accessed December 16, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.