FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,171
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
6. As an initial matter, we find that the Petition raises nothing new - it merely repeats
arguments and allegations made in TeleBEEPER's Statement of Position. The Petition is thus subject to
summary dismissal on that ground.13 Nevertheless, we have considered TeleBEEPER's claim that that
the Bureau did not consider delay by Sprint as a mitigating factor when it analyzed whether TeleBEEPER
acted in good faith in its negotiation and mediation with Sprint. We conclude the claim lacks factual
7. The TeleBEEPER Order acknowledged TeleBEEPER's claim of delay by Sprint.'4 It
found, however, that "TeleBEEPER's suffering 'four years of frustration with Sprint Nextel and the
reconfiguration process' does not justify TeleBEEPER venting its frustration by making non-meritorious
claims for relief."" Thus, assuming arguendo, that delay by Sprint was "an important aspect of the
problem," we find that the Bureau fully considered TeIeBEEPER's claim of delay by Sprint but found
that it did not excuse TeleBEEPER's actions. We conclude, therefore, that TeleBEEPER's reliance on
MAotor Vehicles, supra, is misplaced.
8. TeIeBEEPER also faults the Bureau for not crediting "TeleBEEPER's diligent attempts
to comply with Sprint Nextel's requirements and complete the subject rebanding during that extended
period of time."'6 Complying with Sprint's reasonable requests for information and timely completion of
rebanding are expected of all rebanding licensees and are, therefore, not exculpatory of TeleBEEPER's
actions. Thus, ifTeleBEEPER is implying that partial compliance with its rebanding obligations justifies
its failure to act in good faith, we adamantly reject the implication. The obligation to act in utmost good
faith extends to all - not merely some - rebanding activities."
9. The Petition fails to overcome the TeleBEEPER Order's conclusion that TeleBEEPER
failed to negotiate and mediate in good faith in multiple instances, thereby generating an unwarranted
$142,544.92, five-year legal dispute over a "paper retune." Therefore, we affirm the TeleBEEPER
Order's determination that TeleBEEPER must bear its own rebanding expenses.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSE
10. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority of Sections 0.191, 0.392 and 1.106 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.191, 0.392, 1.106; Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration, submitted March
10, 2011, by TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc. IS DENIED, to the extent indicated, and DISMISSED in
all other respects.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Michael J. Wilhelm
Deputy Chief- Policy Bureau
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
14 TeleBEEPER Order at 3, 5, citing TeleBEEPER Proposed Resolution Memorandum at 4-10
is TeleBEEPER Order at 7, 14.
16 Petition at 3.
'7 Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Report and Order, Fifthl Report anld Order,
Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order. 19 FCC Rcd 14969, 15077 (2004).
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/m1/343/: accessed August 18, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.