Federal Communications Commission DA 07-435 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
WBSCB LICENSING CORPORATION
Applications for a New Educational Broadband 
Service Station on the A and B Group Channels at
Coos Bay, Oregon;
WBSH LICENSING CORPORATION
Applications for a New Educational Broadband 
Service Station on the A and B Group Channels at
Helena, Montana;
WBSK LICENSING CORPORATION
Applications For a New Educational Broadband 
Service Station on the A and C Group Channels at 
Klamath Falls, Oregon;
And 
WBSR LICENSING CORPORATION
Applications for a New Educational Broadband 
Service Station on the A and B Group Channels at 
Roseburg, Oregon
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File Nos. 19961105UO, 19961105UP
File Nos. 19961105UU, 19961105UV
File Nos. 19961115UQ, 19961115UR
File Nos. 19961216US, 19961216UT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  January 31, 2007 Released:  January 31, 2007
By the Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In November of 1996, WBSCB Licensing Corporation (WBSCB), WBSH Licensing 
Corporation (WBSH), WBSK Licensing Corporation (WBSK), and WBSR Licensing Corporation 
(WBSR) (collectively, ‘Petitioners’), all wholly owned subsidiaries of Sprint Nextel, filed applications1
  
1 File Nos. 19961105UO & 19961105UP, filed by WBSCB (Nov. 5, 1996); 19961105UU & 19961105UV, filed by 
WBSH (Nov. 5, 1996); 19961115UQ &19961115UR, filed by WBSK (Nov. 15, 2996); and 19961216US & 
19961216UT, filed by WBSR (December 16, 1996) (Applications).
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-435 
2
and associated waiver requests for various vacant A, B, and C group, Instructional Television Fixed 
Service (ITFS) channels in Coos Bay, Oregon; Helena, Montana; Klamath Falls, Oregon; and Roseburg, 
Oregon.2  Petitioners filed these Waiver Requests in support of their pending Applications pursuant to 
Section 27.1201(c)(1) of the Commission’s Rules,3 and pursuant to the rights granted in the BTA Auction 
Order.4  Specifically, Petitioners seek a waiver of the frequency availability restrictions in Section 27.5 of 
the Commission’s rules, and of the filing freeze imposed by the Commission on new EBS applications in 
the Commission’s April 2003 NPRM and MO&O that proposed new technical rules and a new band plan 
for Educational Broadband Service (EBS) and Broadband Radio Service (BRS) spectrum.5  On or about 
August 4, 2006, Petitioners updated their Waiver Requests pursuant to the Broadband Division’s request, 
and sought a waiver of the frequency availability restrictions in Section 27.5 of the Commission rules.6  
For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Waiver Requests and dismiss Petitioners’ Applications.
II. BACKGROUND  
2. In developing regulatory policies in the 2500-2690 MHz band over the last several 
decades, the Commission has been cognizant of this band’s vast potential to host a variety of services.  In 
1963, the Commission established the ITFS service in the 2500-2690 MHz band,7 envisioning that it 
would be used for transmission of instructional material to accredited public and private schools, colleges, 
and universities for the formal education of students.8 In 1983, in response to the demand for additional 
spectrum for delivery of video entertainment programming to subscribers, the Commission re-allotted 
  
(...continued from previous page)
2 WBSCB Requests for Waiver (filed Nov. 5, 1996); WBSH Requests for Waiver (filed Nov. 5, 1996); WBSK 
Requests for Waiver (filed Nov. 15, 1996); and WBSR Requests for Waiver (filed Dec. 16, 1996) (Waiver 
Requests). Petitioners later updated their Waiver Requests on or about August 4, 1996.
3 Section 27.1201(c)(1) of the Commission’s Rules states in relevant part that “a wireless cable entity may be 
licensed on EBS frequencies in areas where at least eight other EBS channels remain available in the community for 
future EBS use. Channels will be considered available for future EBS use if there are no co-channel operators or 
applicants within 80.5 km (50 miles) of the transmitter site of the proposed wireless cable operation and if the 
transmitter site remains available for use at reasonable terms by new EBS applicants on those channels within three 
years of commencing operation.”  47 C.F.R. § 27.1201(c)(1).
4 See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to filing Procedures in the Multipoint 
Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the 
Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9612 ¶ 41 (1995) (BTA Auction 
Order).
5 See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and 
Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands. 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 03-66, 18 FCC Rcd 6722, 
6811 ¶ 226, 6825 ¶ 260 (2003) (NPRM and MO&O) (stating in relevant part that “[i]t is …. ordered that applications 
for new MDS or ITFS licenses, major modifications of MDS stations, or major changes to ITFS stations other than 
applications for license assignments or transfers of control WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED until further notice.”)
6 Petitioners’ Updated Waiver Requests (filed Aug. 4, 2006).
7 See Educational Television, Docket No. 14744, Report and Order, 39 FCC 846 (1963) (MDS R&O), recon. 
denied, 39 FCC 873 (1964) (ETV Decision).
8 See Amendment of the Commission's Rules With Regard to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, the 
Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service; and Applications for an 
Experimental Station and Establishment of Multi-Channel Systems, Report and Order, 48 Fed. Reg. 33873, 33875 ¶ 
9 (1983) (1983 R&O) (citing ETV Decision, 39 FCC 846, 853 ¶ 25).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-435 
3
eight ITFS channels (the E and F channel blocks) and associated response channels for use by the 
Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS).9 The Commission determined that were a substantial number of 
unused ITFS channels in many areas of the country.10 At the same time, in an effort to encourage more 
intensive use of the spectrum and to help ITFS licensees generate needed revenue, the Commission began 
to relax use restrictions to permit ITFS licensees to lease excess capacity on their facilities to commercial 
entities.11
3. On October 25, 1991, the Commission adopted the “wireless cable exception,” which 
permitted use of available ITFS channels by wireless cable entities.12  To ensure that wireless cable use 
did not have a negative impact upon ITFS, the Commission established a series of requirements that were 
to be met before ITFS channels could be used for wireless cable use.13  Commercial operators seeking to 
take advantage of ITFS frequencies had to show that at least 8 ITFS channels remained available in the 
community.14 Also, there could be no co-channel ITFS station within 50 miles of the proposed system.15
4. In March 1996, the Commission completed an auction of MDS licenses for unused 
spectrum in each of 493 BTAs and BTA-like areas.16  The Commission granted the BTA auction winner 
the exclusive right to apply for available ITFS frequencies on a commercial basis within the BTA.17 The 
Commission’s rules at that time, however, limited applications for new ITFS channel authorizations to 
certain prescribed filing windows.18  Petitioners were successful bidders for the BTA authorizations for 
Coos Bay, Oregon (BTA B097); Klamath, Oregon (BTA B231); Helena, Montana (BTA B188); and 
Roseburg, Oregon (BTA B385).19 Thus, as the BTA authorization holders for these geographic areas, 
Petitioners had the exclusive right to apply for the vacant ITFS channels.20  
5. In November and December of 1996, Petitioners filed a series of applications for the 
vacant ITFS channels in their BTA license areas. Because Petitioners’ applications were filed outside of 
  
9 See Amendment of Parts 2, 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in regard to frequency 
allocation to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private 
Operational Fixed Microwave Service, Gen Docket No. 80-112 and CC Docket No. 80-116, Report and Order, 94 
FCC 2d 1203 (1983) (First Leasing Decision).
10 Id. at 1206-07 ¶ 4.
11 Id.
12 See Amendment of Parts 21, 43, 74, 78, and 94 of the Commission's Rules Governing Use of the Frequencies in 
the 2.1 and 2.5 GHz Bands Affecting: Private Operational-Fixed Microwave Service, Multipoint Distribution 
Service, Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, and Cable Television Relay Service, Gen. Docket No. 90-54, 
Second Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 6792, 6793, 6801-06 ¶¶ 4, 42-58 (1991) (Second Report and Order); see also 
Second Report and Order at Appendix C; 47 C.F.R. § 74.990 (1991).
13 See former 47 C.F.R. § 74.990.
14 See former 47 C.F.R. § 74.990(a).
15 Id.
16 See Winning Bidders in the Auction of Authorizations to Provide Multipoint Distribution Service in 493 Basic 
Trading Areas, Public Notice (rel. Mar. 29, 1996).
17 See BTA Auction Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9612 ¶ 41.  
18 See former 47 C.F.R. § 74.911(c)(2). 
19 FCC Announces Grant of MDS Authorizations, Public Notice, Report No. D-889-A (rel. Oct. 28, 1996).
20 47 C.F.R. § 27.1201(c)(1); see also BTA Auction Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9612 ¶ 41.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-435 
4
an open filing window for ITFS applications, Petitioners sought a waiver of former Section 74.911(c)(2).  
In their Waiver Requests, Petitioners argued that they had assumed that they would also be granted 
authorizations to operate on the vacant ITFS frequencies in the markets they acquired at auction when 
they placed their winning bids.21 Petitioners further argued that any delay in the development of those 
markets would deny service to the public while also forcing them to endure delay and expense while they 
waited to use the spectrum.22
6. In April 2003, the Commission proposed new technical rules and a new band plan for 
ITFS and MDS spectrum and at the same time imposed a filing freeze on new ITFS applications.23  On 
June 10, 2004, the Commission adopted new rules that initiated a fundamental restructuring of the 2500-
2690 MHz band24 to provide both existing ITFS and MDS licensees and potential new entrants greater 
flexibility, encouraging the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally.  At that 
time, the ITFS and MDS services were renamed the Educational Broadband Service (EBS) and 
Broadband Radio Service (BRS), respectively.  Among other things, the Commission eliminated the 
“wireless cable exception” to the EBS eligibility rules for those markets that had transitioned to the new 
band plan.25 The Commission also sought comment on whether to eliminate the wireless cable exception 
to the EBS eligibility rules pre-transition.26 The Commission stated that if it did eliminate the exception, 
it would grandfather existing licenses granted pursuant to the exception.27 Furthermore, because the 
Commission instituted geographic area licensing for BRS/EBS facilities wherein licensees could modify 
or add to their facilities without prior approval, the Commission, in the BRS/EBS R&O & FNPRM,
directed WTB to “dismiss all pending applications to modify MDS or ITFS stations, except for 
modifications that could change an applicant’s protected service area (PSA) or applications for facilities 
that would have to be separately applied for” under the adopted rules.28  
7. Petitioners’ Applications and associated Waiver Requests were dismissed by the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) on July 29, 2004, when it determined that Petitioners application fell 
within the Commission’s directive in the BRS/EBS R&O & FNPRM.  On October 29, 2004, the 
Commission released a modification to the BRS/EBS R&O & FNPRM clarifying that it did not intend to 
have the Bureau dismiss applications to add or modify frequency assignments.29 On October 29, 2004, 
Petitioners filed Petitions for Reconsideration of the dismissal of their applications asserting that because 
their applications sought to add frequency assignments, such applications were improperly dismissed.  On 
May 3, 2005, the Bureau granted these Petitions and reinstated Petitioners’ applications and associated 
  
21 See Waiver Requests at 1-2.
22 Id.
23 See NPRM and MO&O, 18 FCC Rcd at 6811 ¶ 226, 6825 ¶ 260.  
24 See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Provision of fixed and 
Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands. 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 03-66, 19 FCC Rcd 14165 (2004) 
(BRS/EBS R&O and FNPRM).      
25 See id. at 14293 ¶ 349.
26 See id. at 14293 ¶ 350.
27 Id.
28 Id. at 14191 ¶ 58.
29 See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and 
Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands, 
Order, WT Docket No. 03-66, 19 FCC Rcd 22284 (2004) (BRS/EBS Modification Order).      
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-435 
5
Waiver Requests.30 On April 27, 2006, the Commission adopted the BRS/EBS 3rd MO&O and 2nd R&O, 
which eliminated the “wireless cable exception” in those markets that have not transitioned.31 The 
Commission had grandfathered existing applications filed pursuant to the “wireless cable exception.”32
8. On June 9, 2006, the Division notified Petitioners that their Waiver Requests appeared to 
be outdated, and requested that Petitioners update such Waiver Requests to reflect current facts and 
circumstances.  On or about August 4, 2006, Petitioners updated their Waiver Requests pursuant to the 
Division’s request, and sought a waiver of the frequency availability restrictions in Section 27.5 of the 
Commission rules.33 Petitioners argue that a grant of their requests would support Sprint Nextel’s ability 
to deploy broadband infrastructure more efficiently and develop wireless, interactive multimedia 
communications solutions. 34 Petitioners further argue that grant of their applications would potentially 
facilitate the transitions of the BTAs involved to the new BRS/EBS band plan.35 Petitioners also note that 
the spectrum at issue continues to be unlicensed and lies fallow more than forty years after the allocation 
of spectrum for EBS Services.36
III. DISCUSSION
9. As the BTA authorization holders for Coos Bay, Helena, Klamath Falls, and Roseburg
BTAs, Petitioners had the exclusive right to apply for the vacant EBS channels in those geographic areas
pursuant to Section 27.1201(c)(1) of the Commission’s Rules37 and the BTA Auction Order.38 Petitioners
seek a waiver of the frequency availability restrictions contained in Section 27.5 of the Commission’s 
Rules.  To be licensed on these frequencies, Petitioners also require a waiver of the filing freeze that was 
imposed by the Commission on new EBS applications in the Commission’s April 2003 NPRM and 
MO&O.39  The Commission may grant a request for a waiver if it is shown that: (i) the underlying 
purpose of the rule(s) would not be served or would be frustrated by application to the instant case, and 
that a grant of the requested waiver would be in the public interest; or (ii) in view of unique or unusual 
factual circumstances of the instant case, application of the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly 
burdensome or contrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no reasonable alternative.40  In this 
case, we conclude that Petitioners have not met the waiver standard.
  
30 See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s Broadband Division Grants Requests for Reconsideration of 
Dismissal of BRS/EBS Applications, DA 05-1279, Public Notice (WTB rel. May 3, 2005). 
31 Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Provision of fixed and 
Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands. 
Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, WT Docket No. 03-66, 21 FCC Rcd 5606, 
5755 ¶ 364 (2006) (BRS/EBS 3rd MO&O and 2nd R&O).      
32 BRS/EBS R&O and FNPRM , 19 FCC Rcd at 14292-93 ¶¶ 347-350.  
33 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.5.
34 See Petitioners’ Updated Waiver Requests (filed Aug. 4, 2006) at 3.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 47 C.F.R. § 27.1201(c)(1).
38 BTA Auction Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9612 ¶ 41.
39 See NPRM and MO&O, 18 FCC Rcd at 6811 ¶ 226, 6825 ¶ 260.
40 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-435 
6
10. In support of its Applications and associated Waiver Requests, Petitioners argue that 
grant of their requests would support Sprint Nextel’s ability to deploy broadband infrastructure more 
efficiently and develop wireless, interactive multimedia communications solutions in the 2.5 GHz band 
for consumers in the areas in which they hold BTA licenses.41  However, a review of the Commission’s 
records reveals that Petitioners are not themselves using their BTA authorizations, and have actually 
leased their BTA authorizations to other entities.42  Because Petitioners are not currently using their
available spectrum in these geographic areas, and their lease commitments prevent them from deploying 
broadband systems on such spectrum, Petitioners have failed to corroborate their claims that the 
assignment of the additional frequencies requested would facilitate their ability to deploy broadband on 
these frequencies.
11. Petitioners further argue that the requested channel assignments would potentially 
facilitate the timely transition to the new BRS/EBS band plan for the geographic areas at issue.43  To date, 
Transition Initiation Plans for the BRS/EBS band have been filed for over 100 BTAs, and transitions have 
been completed in 23 BTAs.44 This demonstrates that the transition to the new band plan is progressing 
rapidly despite any difficulties the transitioning parties may have encountered.    
12. In this connection, we note that the Commission implemented a filing freeze with respect 
to all applications for new BRS and EBS licenses, as well as for major modifications of those licenses, in 
order to permit the orderly and effective resolution of issues in the BRS/EBS proceeding.45 In August 
2003, the Commission modified the freeze by permitting the filing of applications for new BRS licenses 
and major modifications of those licenses.46 The Commission also permitted the filing of applications for 
major modifications of EBS licenses, but still maintained the filing freeze with respect to applications for 
new EBS licenses.47 The Commission stated that the “purpose [of the freeze] was to prevent further 
construction that might be inconsistent with rules and policies that [it] may later adopt for the band [and 
therefore was] concerned that unconstrained investment in interim technology and systems could generate 
resistance to the adoption of advanced-system rules, if after subsequent analysis [it] were to conclude that 
the interim technologies involved are not consistent with necessary rule changes.”48 In altering the freeze, 
the Commission explained that “several MDS/ITFS operators were well underway with serious efforts to 
deploy two-way, if not fully mobile, Internet access services when the MO&O was adopted [and that the] 
freeze action may have disrupted those plans and brought those efforts to a halt.”49 The Commission, 
however, reasoned “that continuing the freeze on applications for new ITFS stations should not disrupt 
existing business plans.”50 In the instant case, Petitioners have not demonstrated that at that time, they 
  
41 See Updated Waiver Requests at 3.
42 See, e.g., BTA B097, Lease ID L000000104, WSCSB, licensee, and Fixed Wireless Holdings, LLC, lessee, (May 
5, 2005 to Mar. 28, 2016). 
43 See Updated Waiver Requests at 3.
44 See WT Docket No. 06-136. 
45 See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Provision of fixed and 
Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands. 
Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 03-66, 18 FCC Rcd 16848  ¶ 1 (2003) (Second MO&O).
46 Id. at 16848 ¶ 1.
47 Id.
48 See id. at 16851 ¶ 6.
49 See id. at 16851 ¶ 8.
50 See id. at 16851-52 ¶ 10.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-435 
7
had efforts underway to deploy broadband services in the geographic areas at issue, and that the freeze 
has disrupted such plans or halted their efforts.  Therefore, Petitioners do not fall into the category of 
licensees whom the freeze modification was meant to assist.
13. Finally, Petitioners note that a search of Commission records indicates that there are no 
EBS licensees within fifty miles of the geographic areas at issue herein, and point out that the spectrum 
continues to lie fallow.51  However, even prior to Petitioners’ 1996 Applications, EBS-eligible entities 
have not been able to apply for these channels due to the filing window restrictions and filing freezes 
discussed above.  Indeed, in eliminating the “wireless cable exception” to the EBS eligibility rule post-
transition, the Commission noted, “[g]iven that EBS-eligible licensees have not been able to apply for 
new stations in this band since 1995, we believe the better action is to restrict access to ITFS frequencies 
after the transition to educational institutions and non-profit educational organizations.”52 In this case, 
Petitioners have not proffered any compelling arguments to demonstrate that waiving the filing freeze 
would not harm educational entities that wished to access EBS spectrum in these areas. Nor have 
Petitioners, who are not utilizing their available spectrum in these geographic areas, demonstrated any 
compelling reasons why they should be able to acquire such spectrum before EBS-eligible entities have 
been given the opportunity to seek licenses for these EBS channels.  Therefore, we conclude that 
Petitioners have not demonstrated that they merit a waiver of Section 27.5 or a waiver of the current filing 
freeze on EBS channels imposed by the Commission on new EBS applications in the Commission’s April 
2003, NPRM and MO&O.53  
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES
14. For the reasons discussed above, we deny Petitioners’ request for a waiver of Section 
27.5 of the Commission’s rules, and further deny them a waiver of the filing freeze that was imposed by 
the Commission on new EBS applications in the Commission’s April 2003 NPRM and MO&O.  We also 
dismiss Petitioners’ above-captioned Applications.
15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.925(b)(3) of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 
1.925(b)(3), that the waiver requests filed by WBSCB Licensing Corporation, WBSH Licensing 
Corporation, WBSK Licensing Corporation and WBSR Licensing Corporation on or about August 4, 
2006, in connection with File Nos. 19961105UO, 19961105UP, 19961105UU, 19961105UV, 
19961115UQ, 19961115UR, 19961216US and 19961216UT ARE DENIED.
  
51 See Updated Waiver Requests at 3.
52 Id., 19 FCC Rcd at 14293 ¶ 349.
53 See NPRM and MO&O, 18 FCC Rcd at 6811 ¶ 226, 6825 ¶ 260.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-435 
8
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309 and Section 27.5 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 
C.F.R. § 27.5, that the licensing staff of the Broadband Division SHALL DISMISS File Nos. 
19961105UO, 19961105UP, 19961105UU, 19961105UV, 19961115UQ, 19961115UR, 19961216US and 
19961216UT. 
17. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Joel D. Taubenblatt
Chief, Broadband Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau