Federal Communications Commission DA 07-433
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Hexagram, Inc.
Petition for Reconsideration of Hexagram 
Application for Review of the i2way Corporation 
Request for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the 
Ten-Channel Limit of Section 90.187(e) of the 
Commission’s Rules  
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. 2004011722
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  January 31, 2007 Released:  January 31, 2007
By the Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This order on reconsideration addresses a petition filed by Hexagram, Inc. (Hexagram) on 
June 4, 2004 (Second Petition),1 seeking reconsideration of the Commission’s Memorandum Opinion and 
Order (MO&O) affirming the dismissal of the above-captioned Request for Declaratory Ruling.2 The 
MO&O also denied Hexagram’s Application for Review3 of the Commercial Wireless Division’s4
decision released on April 1, 2003,5 which dismissed Hexagram’s petition to deny i2way Corporation’s 
(i2way) Request for Declaratory Ruling (First Petition).6 For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss 
Hexagram’s Second Petition as repetitious.
II. BACKGROUND
2. On June 7, 2002 i2way filed a Request for Declaratory Ruling pursuant to Section 1.2 of 
the Commission’ rules, seeking clarification of the ten-channel limit set forth in Section 90.187(e) of the 
  
1 Petition for Reconsideration filed by Hexagram, Inc. (Jun. 4, 2004) (Second Petition).
2 In the Matters of i2way Request for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Ten-Channel Limit of Section 90.187(e) of 
the Commission’s Rules and Hexagram Petition to Deny i2way Applications, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19
FCC Rcd 8460 (2004).
3 Application for Review filed by Hexagram, Inc. (May 1, 2003) (Application for Review).
4 In late 2003, the Commission’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau was reorganized.  Many of the mobile radio 
services licensing issues formerly under the Bureau’s Commercial Wireless Division, including operations that 
i2way proposed in its applications and Hexagram argued against in its Petition to Deny, are now under the purview 
of the Bureau’s Mobility Division.  See FCC’s Wireless Bureau Announces Reorganization, Public Notice (rel. Nov. 
24, 2003).
5 In the Matter of i2way Request for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Ten-Channel Limit of Section 90.187(e) of 
the Commission’s Rules and Hexagram Petition to Deny i2way Applications, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 6293 (2003) 
(Branch Order).
6 Petition to Deny filed by Hexagram, Inc., (Feb. 28, 2002).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-433
2
Commission’s rules.7  The Commission released the Public Notice regarding i2way’s applications on 
December 19, 2001, with a corresponding filing deadline for petitions to deny of January 18, 2002.8 On 
February 28, 2002, nearly six weeks later, Hexagram filed its petition to deny certain i2way applications.9  
3. Section 1.939 of the Commission’s Rules provides that petitions to deny must be filed no 
later than 30 days after the date of the Public Notice listing the application or major amendment to the 
application as accepted for filing.10  The Bureau denied Hexagram’s petition on April 1, 2003, citing
Hexagram’s failure to meet the required 30 day filing deadline, among other reasons.11  Hexagram then 
filed its Application for Review arguing that the public notice listing i2way’s applications did not provide
actual notice.  On May 5, 2004, the full Commission denied Hexagram’s Application, reasoning that the 
Commission’s public notices do indeed provide sufficient information to alert existing licensees and those 
with pending applications that the Commission has received a proposal that may affect existing services 
or other pending proposals and, therefore, Hexagram’s petition was without merit.12  Following the 
Commission’s denial of its Application for Review, on June 4, 2004, Hexagram filed the instant Petition 
for Reconsideration.13 On March 23, 2005, the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, denied i2way’s 
Petition for Review.14
III. DISCUSSION
4. We dismiss Hexagram’s Second Petition as repetitious under Section 1.106(b) of the 
Commission’s rules because Hexagram fails to support its arguments with any new facts or circumstances 
that changed after the filing of its Application for Review.15 Hexagram contends that the Commission’s 
explanation for the denial of the Application for Review did not address the substantive questions of 
Hexagram’s petition or properly consider its arguments.16  We find that the Commission addressed 
Hexagram’s substantive arguments in the MO&O and that Hexagram has not complied with Commission 
  
7 Request for Declaratory Ruling filed by i2way Corporation (Jun. 7, 2002).
8 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Site-by-Site Accepted for Filing, Public Notice, Report No. 1047 (Dec. 19, 
2001).
9 First Petition.
10 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(a)(2).
11 Branch Order, 18 FCC Rcd 6293.
12 MO&O, 19 FCC Rcd 8460, 8465 ¶10.
13 Second Petition.
14 I2way Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, 161 Fed. Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. March 23, 2005).
15 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b).  Section 1.106(b)(2) of the Commission’s Rules provides that where the Commission has 
denied an application for review, a petition for reconsideration will be entertained only if one or more of the 
following circumstances is present: “(i) the petition relies on facts which relate to events which have occurred or 
circumstances which have changed since the last opportunity to present such matters, or (ii) the petition relies on 
facts unknown to petitioner until after his last opportunity to present such matters which could not, through the 
exercise of ordinary diligence, have been learned prior to such opportunity.”  Id. § 1.106(b)(2).  Section 1.106(b)(3) 
provides that “[a] petition for reconsideration of an order denying an application for review which fails to rely on 
new facts or changed circumstances may be dismissed by the staff as repetitious.”  Id. § 1.106(b)(3).
16 Second Petition at 1.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-433
3
rules by simply reiterating its arguments and failing to provide any new or changed facts or circumstances 
in the Second Petition.  We therefore dismiss Hexagram’s Second Petition as repetitious.17  
IV. ORDERING CLAUSE
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r) and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 405, and Sections 0.331 and 
1.106(b) of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.331, 1.106(b), the Petition for Reconsideration filed 
by Hexagram, Inc. on June 4, 2004, IS DISMISSED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Lloyd W. Coward
Deputy Chief, Mobility Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
  
17 We note that this matter also appears to have been resolved because the D.C. Circuit, as noted above, denied 
i2way’s Petition for Review, and the Commission has dismissed the i2way applications associated with Hexagram’s 
pleadings.