Goto Section: 22.939 | 22.943 | Table of Contents
Revised as of December 4, 2012
Goto Year:2011 |
§ 22.940 Criteria for comparative cellular renewal proceedings.
This section sets forth criteria to be used in comparative cellular
renewal proceedings. The ultimate issue in comparative renewal
proceedings will be to determine, in light of the evidence adduced in
the proceeding, what disposition of the applications would best serve
the public interest, convenience and necessity.
(a) Renewal expectancies. The most important comparative factor to be
considered in a comparative cellular renewal proceeding is a major
preference, commonly referred to as a “renewal expectancy.”
(1) The cellular renewal applicant involved in a comparative renewal
proceeding will receive a renewal expectancy, if its past record for
the relevant license period demonstrates that:
(i) The renewal applicant has provided “substantial” service during its
past license term. “Substantial” service is defined as service which is
sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service
which just might minimally warrant renewal; and
(ii) The renewal applicant has substantially compiled with applicable
FCC rules, policies and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
(2) In order to establish its right to a renewal expectancy, a cellular
renewal applicant involved in a comparative renewal proceeding must
submit a showing explaining why it should receive a renewal expectancy.
At a minimum, this showing must include.
(i) A description of its current service in terms of geographic
coverage and population served, as well as the system's ability to
accommodate the needs of roamers;
(ii) An explanation of its record of expansion, including a timetable
of the construction of new cell sites to meet changes in demand for
(iii) A description of its investments in its cellular system; and
(iv) Copies of all FCC orders finding the licensee to have violated the
Communications Act or any FCC rule or policy; and a list of any pending
proceedings that relate to any matter described in this paragraph.
(3) In making its showing of entitlement to a renewal expectancy, a
renewal applicant may claim credit for any system modification
applications that were pending on the date it filed its renewal
application. Such credit will not be allowed if the modification
application is dismissed or denied.
(b) Additional comparative issues. The following additional comparative
issues will be included in comparative cellular renewal proceedings, if
a full comparative hearing is conducted pursuant to § 22.935(c).
(1) To determine on a comparative basis the geographic areas and
population that each applicant proposes to serve; to determine and
compare the relative demand for the services proposed in said areas;
and to determine and compare the ability of each applicant's cellular
system to accommodate the anticipated demand for both local and roamer
(2) To determine on a comparative basis each applicant's proposal for
expanding its system capacity in a coordinated manner in order to meet
anticipated increasing demand for both local and roamer service;
(3) To determine on a comparative basis the nature and extent of the
service proposed by each applicant, including each applicant's proposed
rates, charges, maintenance, personnel, practices, classifications,
regulations and facilities (including switching capabilities); and
(4) To determine on a comparative basis each applicant's past
performance in the cellular industry or another business of comparable
type and size.
(c) Additional showings for competing applications. With respect to
evidence introduced pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section, any
applicant filing a competing application against a cellular renewal
application (competing applicant) who claims a preference for offering
any service not currently offered by the incumbent licensee must
demonstrate that there is demand for that new service and also present
a business plan showing that the competing applicant can operate the
system economically. Any competing applicant who proposes to replace
analog technology with digital technology will receive no credit for
its proposal unless it submits a business plan showing how it will
operate its system economically and how it will provide more
comprehensive service than does the incumbent licensee with existing
and implemented cellular technology.
return arrow Back to Top
Goto Section: 22.939 | 22.943
Goto Year: 2011 |
CiteFind - See documents on FCC website that
cite this rule
Want to support this service?
Report errors in
this rule. Since these rules are converted to HTML by machine, it's possible errors have been made. Please
help us improve these rules by clicking the Report FCC Rule Errors link to report an error.
Helping make public information public