Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1355
1
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Comtec Communications, Inc.
Request for Waiver of Automatic Cancellation of 
900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service 
Licenses 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Adopted:  June 6, 2008 Released:  June 6, 2008
By the Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We have before us a request for waiver of the automatic cancellation of three 900 MHz 
Specialized Mobile Radio (“SMR”) licenses (the “Licenses”) filed on behalf of Comtec 
Communications, Inc., d/b/a SkyTec P.R., Inc. (“SkyTec”).1 Comtec Communications, Inc. (“Comtec”), 
won the Licenses in Auction No. 7, elected to pay for the Licenses through the Commission’s installment 
payment program, and later defaulted on its installment payment obligations. Pursuant to the 
Commission’s rules, the Licenses therefore automatically canceled.2  
2. We find that the Waiver Request does not adequately explain SkyTec P.R., Inc.’s 
relationship to Comtec, the licensee of record when the Licenses canceled, and that, based on the 
information before us, it is unclear whether SkyTec is the same corporate entity as Comtec.  As explained 
below, in filings with the Commission Comtec has submitted ownership information that includes 
significant inconsistencies, suggesting that Comtec may have engaged in an unauthorized transfer of 
control of the Licenses prior to their cancellation and may have misrepresented material facts and lacked 
candor before the Commission.  On April 18, 2007, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“Bureau”) 
sent a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to Comtec seeking information regarding Comtec’s ownership structure 
and its relationship to SkyTec P.R., Inc.  Although Comtec was required to respond to the LOI within 30 
calendar days, it did not do so.  Given Comtec’s failure to explain the evidence in the record of a possible 
  
1 Letter from Bonnie K. Arthur, Esq., to John Muleta, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Marlene 
H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, filed April 9, 2003 (“Waiver Request”).  The licenses 
at issue are KNNY248 - MTA025, Channel Block A; KNNY249 - MTA025, Channel Block T; KNNY250 -
MTA025, Channel Block C.
2 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e)(4)(iii) (1997).  The rule providing for the automatic cancellation of licenses upon the 
default of the licensee on installment payments is now codified at 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(iv).
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1355
2
unauthorized transfer of control of the Licenses prior to their cancellation as well as other serious 
violations of the Commission’s rules, we find that we have insufficient information to consider the merits 
of any request for a waiver of the automatic cancellation of the Licenses.  We therefore deny the Waiver 
Request without considering the merits of the arguments presented therein.  
3. In light of our denial of the Waiver Request, we dismiss as moot Comtec’s application for 
renewal of the Licenses and its request for waiver of the requirement of filing renewal applications 
electronically.3 The Waiver Request states that Comtec has continued to operate on the Licenses 
subsequent to their automatic cancellation.  To the extent Comtec has done so, it has violated the 
Commission’s rules.  Nevertheless, in order to avoid disruptions in service to any customers Comtec may 
have as those customers make arrangements with other service providers, we grant Comtec Special 
Temporary Authority (“STA”) to provide service using the Licenses for 180 days from the release of this 
Order consistent with the conditions described below.4
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Commission’s Installment Payment Program
4. When the Commission first adopted competitive bidding rules in 1994, it established an 
installment payment program under which qualified small businesses that won licenses in certain services 
were allowed to pay their winning bids in quarterly installments over the initial term of the license.5 In 
deciding to offer installment payment plans, the Commission reasoned that in appropriate circumstances 
such plans would, by reducing the amount of private financing small entities needed in advance of 
auctions, help to provide opportunities for small businesses to participate in the provision of spectrum-
based services.6 Licensees paying in installments were generally allowed to pay only interest in the early 
years of the license term.7 When in 1997 the Commission discontinued the use of installment payments 
  
3 Comtec filed renewal applications for the Licenses manually on July 14, 2006.  The Commission’s rules require 
license renewal applications to be filed electronically through the Universal Licensing System (“ULS”).  47 C.F.R
§ 1.913(b).  Because the Licenses had automatically canceled, however, Comtec could not file its renewal 
applications electronically through ULS.  Comtec’s request for waiver of the electronic filing requirement was 
submitted as an attachment to its renewal applications.  The manual applications were uploaded into ULS and 
assigned FCC file numbers, ULS File Nos. 0002690264, 0002690265, and 0002690266, but the Bureau never 
issued a public notice accepting the applications for filing.    
4 On August 12, 2003, Comtec Communications, Inc., d/b/a SkyTrackers, Inc., requested an STA to continue 
providing service on the Licenses until action was taken on the Waiver Request.  Letter from Bonnie K. Arthur, 
Esq., to Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission, filed August 12, 2003.  We note that, as is the case with SkyTec P.R., Inc., 
the relationship of Comtec to SkyTrackers, Inc., is unclear.
5 Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, Second Report and Order,
9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2389-91 ¶¶ 231-40 (1994). The first Commission auction for which installment payments were 
available was Auction No. 2 (218-219 MHz Service), which concluded on July 29, 1994. 
6 Id. at 2389-90 ¶ 233. The goal of providing opportunities for small businesses to participate in the provision of 
spectrum-based services is set forth at 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B), (4)(D).
7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e)(3)(iii), (iv) (1994).
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1355
3
for future auctions,8 it allowed entities that were already paying for licenses in installments to continue 
doing so.9
5. Under the installment payment rules in effect at the time Comtec failed to submit the 
payments that were due, licensees were permitted 90 days after a payment due date to either submit the 
payment or file a grace period request with the Commission.10 Any licensee who failed to do so was in 
default.11 If the licensee defaulted, the license canceled automatically and the Commission instituted 
debt collection procedures.12  
  
8 The Commission discontinued the use of installment payments based on its findings that (1) installment payments 
are not necessary to ensure meaningful opportunities for small businesses to participate successfully in auctions; 
(2) the Commission must consider all of the objectives of section 309(j) of the Communications Act, including the 
development and rapid deployment of new services for the benefit of the public; (3) filings for bankruptcy by 
entities unable to pay their winning bids may result in delays in the deployment of service; and (4) requiring the 
payment of bids in full within a short time after the close of auctions ensures greater financial accountability from 
applicants.  Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules – Competitive Bidding Procedures, Third Report and 
Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 397-98 ¶¶ 38-39 (1998) (“Part 1 
Third Report and Order”).  The Commission affirmed this decision in 2000.  Amendment of Part 1 of the 
Commission's Rules – Competitive Bidding Procedures, Order on Reconsideration of the Third Report and Order, 
Fifth Report and Order, and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 15,293, 15,322 ¶ 55 
(2000) (“Part 1 Reconsideration of Third Report and Order”).  The last Commission auction for which installment 
payments were available was Auction No. 11 (broadband PCS F block), which ended on January 14, 1997.
9 Part 1 Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 436 ¶ 106.
10 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e)(4)(i) & (ii) (1997). Licensees were permitted to request a grace period of 90 to 180 days.  
11 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e)(4)(i), (ii), & (iii) (1997).  
12 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e)(4)(iii) (1997). In 1997, the Commission amended its installment payment rules to provide 
licensees with an automatic grace period.  Under these rules, which became effective on March 16, 1998, if a 
licensee did not make full and timely payment of an installment, it was automatically granted a 90-day period 
during which it was allowed to pay the installment along with a 5 percent late fee. If it did not submit the missed 
installment payment and the 5 percent late fee before the expiration of this 90-day period, the licensee was
automatically granted a second 90-day period during which it could remit payment along with an additional late fee 
equal to 10 percent of the missed payment. A licensee’s failure to make payment, including the associated late fees, 
by the end of the second 90-day period placed it in default.  47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(f)(4)(i) (1998); Part 1 Third 
Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 436 ¶ 106.  In 2000, the Commission simplified these rules by replacing the two 
90-day grace periods with two quarterly grace periods.  47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(iv) (2000).  This change aligned 
the schedule for late payments with the quarterly schedule of regular installment payments.  Part 1 Reconsideration 
of Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 15,310 ¶ 28.
Notwithstanding these amendments, certain features of the Commission’s installment payment rules have 
remained the same since they were first adopted in 1994.  Thus, the rules have always conditioned the grant of 
licenses upon the full and timely performance of licensees’ payment obligations and have provided that, upon a 
licensee’s default, the license cancels automatically and the Commission institutes debt collection procedures. See, 
e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e)(4) (1994) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(f)(4) (1998). See also Amendment of Part 1 of the 
Commission's Rules – Competitive Bidding Procedures, Third Order on Reconsideration of the Third Report and 
Order, 19 FCC Rcd 2551 (2004).  In that Order, which addressed the inapplicability of 47 C.F.R. § 1.2104 of the 
Commission’s rules to installment payment defaults, the Commission discussed its 1997 decision not to deviate 
from its license-cancellation-plus-debt-collection rule for installment payment defaults and explained the 
reasonableness of this decision.  Noting that automatic license cancellation is not unique to defaults on installment 
payments (licenses terminate automatically, for example, when licensees fail to build out in compliance with the 
Commission’s rules, whether they are paying their winning bids in installments or have paid them in full in a lump 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1355
4
B. Comtec’s Acquisition of the Licenses and Its Default on Its Installment Payments
6. Comtec was the winning bidder for the Licenses in Auction No. 7.13 As a small business 
under Section 90.814(b)(1)(i) of the Commission’s rules,14 Comtec was eligible to, and elected to, pay for 
the Licenses over their ten-year term using the installment payment plan available to small businesses 
that won licenses in Auction No. 7.15 On August 16, 1996, the Bureau granted the Licenses to Comtec 
conditioned upon Comtec’s full and timely performance of its payment obligations.16  
7. Comtec was required to begin making quarterly installment payments on the Licenses on 
November 30, 1996.  At discussed above, the Commission’s rules at that time allowed licensees 90 days 
after an installment payment due date to either submit the required payment or file a grace period request. 
Comtec submitted its first three installment payments, which were due in November 1996, February 
1997, and May 1997, within this 90-day period.  However, the Commission did not receive the payment 
due in August 1997, nor did Comtec file a grace period request, within 90 days of the due date. Pursuant 
to the Commission’s rules, the Licenses therefore automatically canceled on December 2, 1997, and 
Comtec became subject to debt collection procedures.17 Comtec began making payments on its 
outstanding debt in April 1998 and eventually paid the debt in full on August 26, 2006.18  
8. On April 9, 2003, SkyTec filed the Waiver Request.  The Waiver Request acknowledges that 
Comtec failed to make the installment payment due in August 1997 before the end of the 90-day period 
permitted under the Commission’s rules.19 The Waiver Request asserts that although the Commission 
was not obligated to notify Comtec of the missed payment, it proceeded as if the Licenses were active 
after the missed deadline.20 The Waiver Request further argues that, because the Commission treated the 
Licenses as active following Comtec’s default and accepted Comtec’s post-default payments, a 
(Continued from previous page)    
sum), the Commission explained that its rules are designed to encourage entities that cannot meet their financial 
obligations to exit the auction process sooner rather than later in order to avoid delays in licensing spectrum to 
entities that are able to provide service to the public.  Thus, the consequence of defaulting after the close of an 
auction is more severe than the consequence of withdrawing a high bid during an auction, when a new high bidder 
can still emerge.  Similarly, the consequence of a post-licensing default, such as an installment payment default or a 
failure to meet construction or service requirements, is more severe than the consequence of a pre-licensing default
because the former could adversely affect service to the public much longer than the latter.  Id. at 2561-62 ¶¶ 29-
31.
13 FCC Announces Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1,020 Licenses to Provide 900 MHz SMR in Major Trading 
Areas, Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 18,599 (1996).  
14 47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(1)(i) (1995).
15 Id. § 90.812 (1995).
16 FCC Announces Grant of 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio MTA Licenses, Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 9451 
(1996).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 90.812(a) (1995).
17 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2110(e)(4)(iii) (1997).
18 After the April 1998 payment, Comtec made payments to the Commission in January 1999, February 2001, May 
2001, and July 2001.  It then made quarterly payments to the Commission until the debt was paid in full on August 
26, 2006.
19 Waiver Request at 1.
20 Id. at 1-2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1355
5
constructive waiver of the installment payment deadline occurred.21  
C. Comtec’s Submission of Inconsistent Ownership Information and the Bureau’s Letter of 
Inquiry
9. Despite the cancellation of the Licenses, Comtec manually filed renewal applications for the 
Licenses in July 2006, one month prior to what would have been the end of the original ten-year license 
terms.22 In conjunction with its renewal applications, Comtec filed an FCC Form 602 on September 7, 
2006.23 The information Comtec provided on the form was deemed insufficient, and Comtec refiled FCC 
Form 602 on September 20, 2006.24  
10. The ownership information Comtec reported in its FCC Form 602 in September 2006 is 
different from the ownership information it submitted in the FCC Form 175 short-form application it 
filed to participate in Auction No. 7.25 In its FCC Form 175, Comtec identified Jose Barreda as the sole 
owner and president of Comtec and stated that no other individuals or entities had an ownership interest 
in Comtec.26 The FCC Form 175 further indicated that Comtec did not have any affiliates pursuant to 
Section 90.815(a)(1) of the Commission’s rules.27 In contrast, Comtec’s FCC Form 602 indicates that 
Henry L. Barreda and Miguel J. Carbonell each holds a 50 percent ownership interest in Comtec.28  
11. The differences in the ownership information reported in these forms, in addition to the filing 
of the Waiver Request by a corporate entity that appeared to be different from Comtec, raised serious 
questions regarding whether Comtec had effected an unauthorized transfer of control of the Licenses 
prior to their automatic cancellation.  The differences in the ownership information in Comtec’s FCC 
Form 175 and FCC Form 602 also raised the possibility that Comtec had misrepresented its ownership 
  
21 Id. at 2, 4.
22 See supra note 3.    
23 ULS File No. 0002743705.  FCC Form 602 is used by license applicants and licensees in auctionable services to 
provide ownership information to the Commission and keep that information up to date. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.913(a)(2), 
1.919(a).  This form must be filed or updated to renew an existing license if a current FCC Form 602 is not on file 
with the Commission.  Id. § 1.919(b)(2).  The Commission considers the ownership data pertaining to the filer in 
determining whether the public interest would be served by a grant of the requested authorization.  The form 
requires the provision of information regarding the identity of the real party or parties in interest of the filer and 
additional information required by Section 1.2112(a) of the Commission's rules regarding: (1) persons or entities 
holding a 10 percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest in the filer; (2) all limited partners whose 
interest in the filer is 10 percent or greater; (3) all general partners in any general partnership in the filer's chain of 
ownership; and (4) the members of any limited liability corporation whose interest in the filer is 10 percent or 
greater.  Id. § 1.2112(a)(4).  
24 ULS File No. 0002757999.  
25 All applicants for Commission auctions are required to file FCC Form 175, and information regarding the 
ownership of the applicant must be provided on this form.  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2105(a), 90.806, 90.815 (1995).  
The Commission’s rules also provide that applicants are responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness 
of information furnished in a pending application and applicants must maintain up-to-date ownership information 
on file with the Commission.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.65.
26 Comtec Communications, Inc., FCC Form 175, File No. 0660498645.
27 47 C.F.R. § 90.815(a)(1) (1995).
28 ULS File No. 0002743705. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1355
6
structure in its FCC Form 175 in order to qualify for designated entity status, which not only allowed it to 
pay for the Licenses in installments but also made it eligible for bidding credits.29 On April 18, 2007, the 
Bureau therefore sent the LOI to Comtec, in which, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 308(b), and 
403, we directed Comtec, the licensee of record at the time of the automatic cancellation of the Licenses, 
to provide certain information and documents within 30 calendar days, i.e., by May 18, 2007. 30 Comtec 
was required to provide information and documents relating to its corporate composition, any changes to 
its ownership or control since its application to participate in Auction No. 7, and its relationship to 
SkyTec P.R., Inc.  Comtec did not respond to the LOI.  
III. DISCUSSION 
12. To obtain a waiver of the automatic cancellation rule, Comtec would have to show either 
that: (i) the underlying purpose of the rule would not be served, or would be frustrated, by its application 
in the instant case, and a grant of the requested waiver would be in the public interest; or (ii) the unique 
facts and circumstances of the instant case render application of the rule inequitable, unduly burdensome 
or otherwise contrary to the public interest, or Comtec has no reasonable alternative.31 In order for us to 
consider any arguments Comtec might make to meet this standard, which requires us to find that a waiver 
of the rule would be in the public interest, we would need to have complete and accurate information 
regarding Comtec’s ownership structure and would need to be satisfied that Comtec is qualified to be a 
Commission licensee.  Comtec has not provided us with sufficient information to make such a 
determination and we therefore deny the Waiver Request.  
13. The Waiver Request does not explain SkyTec’s relationship to Comtec.  It states merely that 
Comtec “d/b/a SkyTec P.R., Inc.” requests a waiver of the automatic cancellation of the Licenses.  As 
indicated above, the present record includes evidence of Comtec’s having either transferred control of the 
Licenses without Commission authorization or misrepresented its ownership structure in its Auction No. 
7 short-form application, or both.  The Waiver Request’s indication that Comtec is doing business as 
SkyTec P.R., Inc., is inadequate to explain this evidence and therefore does not resolve the questions we 
have regarding whether Comtec committed one or more serious violations of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended (the “Act”), and the Commission’s rules.  In light of Comtec’s failure to respond to our 
LOI, in which we directed Comtec to resolve these issues by explaining its ownership structure since the 
filing of its Auction No. 7 short-form application and its relationship to SkyTec P.R., Inc., we are unable 
  
29 Designated entities are small businesses, businesses owned by members of minority groups and/or women, and 
rural telephone companies.  47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(a).  The Commission defines small businesses in its competitive 
bidding rules for each service in which it offers preferences to such entities.  Bidders that qualified as small 
businesses for Auction No. 7 were eligible for bidding credits and allowed to participate in the Commission’s 
installment payment program.  47 C.F.R. §§ 90.810, 90.812, 90.814 (1995).  There were two separate small 
business categories, each eligible for different bidding credit amounts and installment payment terms:  (1) entities 
that, together with affiliates, had average gross revenues for the preceding three years of $3 million or less; and (2) 
entities that, together with affiliates, had average gross revenues for the preceding three years of $15 million or 
less.  Entities having average gross revenues of less than $3 million qualified for a 15 percent bidding credit and 
were allowed to pay 90 percent of their net bids in quarterly installment payments.  47 C.F.R. §§ 90.810, 90.812 
(1995); id. § 1.2110.  Based on the information it reported in its FCC Form 175, Comtec qualifed as a small 
business having average gross revenues of less than $3 million for the preceding three years.  Consequently, it 
received a 15 percent bidding credit and participated in the installment payment program. 
30 Letter from Fred B. Campbell, Jr., Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, to Bonnie Arthur, Esq., Hunton & Williams, dated April 18, 2007.  
31 47 C.F.R. § 1.925.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1355
7
to assess Comtec’s qualifications to be a Commission licensee.  
14. Pursuant to Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 1.948 of the Commission’s rules, 
authorizations in the 900 MHz SMR service may be assigned by the licensee to another party, or the 
control of a licensee holding such an authorization may be transferred, only with Commission approval.32
As discussed above, the ownership structure Comtec reported in its FCC Form 602 in September 2006 is 
different from the ownership structure it reported in its FCC Form 175 in 1995.  The Commission did 
not, however, approve a transfer of control of the Licenses, nor did Comtec file an application seeking 
such approval.  Therefore, if the ownership information Comtec submitted in its short-form application 
was correct and its FCC Form 602 is also correct, the only reasonable conclusion we may draw is that, in 
violation of the Act and the Commission’s rules, Comtec transferred control of the Licenses without 
Commission authorization.33  
15. Another possible explanation of the difference in ownership information between Comtec’s 
short-form application and its September 2006 FCC Form 602 is that Comtec submitted incorrect 
information in its short-form application in order to qualify for the designated entity benefits available to 
eligible applicants in Auction No. 7, i.e., installment payments and bidding credits.  Under the 
Commission’s rules, an applicant is eligible for designated entity status if it meets the applicable limits 
on gross revenues that are established as part of the rules for each service.  At the time Comtec applied to 
participate in Auction No. 7, the Commission determined whether an applicant met these limits by 
aggregating the gross revenues of the applicant, its affiliates, and persons or entities holding interests in 
the applicant and their affiliates.34 Therefore, an applicant seeking status as a small business in Auction 
No. 7 was required to disclose on its short-form application the identities of all such parties and the 
applicant’s gross revenues in accordance with the Commission’s method of computation.35 If Comtec 
did not report its real parties in interest on its short-form application, one reasonable inference is that it 
failed to do so because the revenues of such parties would have caused it to exceed the revenue limits for 
designated entity status and would have thereby made it ineligible for installment payments and bidding 
  
32 47 U.S.C. § 310(d); 47 C.F.R. § 1.948.  
33 We also note that pursuant to Section 1.2111(a) of the Commission’s rules, an applicant seeking approval of a 
transfer of control or assignment of a license within three years of receiving the license through competitive 
bidding must file with the Commission the associated contracts for sale, option agreements, management 
agreements, or other documents disclosing the consideration that the applicant would receive in return for the 
transfer or assignment of its license.  47 C.F.R. § 1.2111(a) (1997). Therefore, if indeed Comtec effected a transfer 
of control of the Licenses prior to their cancellation, it violated not only Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 
1.948 of the Commission’s rules but also Section 1.2111(a), as it did not comply with the reporting requirements of 
that section.  In addition, if the revenues of the party or parties to whom the Licenses were transferred caused 
Comtec to be ineligible for the installment payment plan in which it participated and the bidding credit it received, 
Comtec also violated the unjust enrichment provisions of Section 1.2111.  Under the unjust enrichment provisions 
that governed licensees utilizing installment financing prior to the cancellation of the Licenses, if Comtec had 
sought to assign or transfer control of any of the Licenses to an entity not meeting the eligibility standards for 
installment payments, Comtec would have been required to make full payment of the remaining unpaid principal as 
a condition of approval of the assignment or transfer.  47 C.F.R. § 1.2111(c)(1) (1997).  If Comtec had proposed to 
assign or transfer any of the Licenses to an entity that did not meet the eligibility criteria for the bidding credit 
Comtec had received, Comtec would have been required to repay the bidding credit to the Commission with 
interest as a condition of approval of the assignment or transfer.  47 C.F.R. § 1.2111(d) (1997). 
34 47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(2) (1995).  
35 47 C.F.R. § 90.815(a) (1995).
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1355
8
credits.
16. Section 1.17 of the Commission’s rules prohibits misrepresentations and lack of candor in 
Commission filings.36  Misrepresentations are false statements of fact made with an intent to deceive, 
while lack of candor involves concealment, evasion, and other failures to be fully informative 
accompanied by deceptive intent.37 The Commission may disqualify a license applicant or revoke the 
license of a licensee that makes misrepresentations or lacks candor in dealing with the agency.38  
Applicants’ and licensees’ truthfulness and candor before the Commission, as well as their compliance 
with its rules, are paramount concerns in determining whether they should acquire licenses or continue to 
hold existing authorizations.  As the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has stated: 
[A]pplicants before the FCC are held to a high standard of candor and forthrightness. 
The Commission must license [thousands of] stations in the public interest, and therefore 
relies heavily on the completeness and accuracy of the submissions made to it. . . . Thus, 
“applicants  . . . have an affirmative duty to inform the Commission of the facts it needs 
in order to fulfill its statutory mandate.”39
We also note that the Commission has made clear in its Character Policy Statement that 
misrepresentations and lack of candor before the Commission are serious breaches of trust that may 
demonstrate that a party does not have the requisite character qualifications to be a Commission 
licensee.40  
  
36 47 C.F.R. § 1.17.  
37 Fox River Broadcasting, Inc., Order, 93 F.C.C. 2d 127, 129 ¶ 6 (1983).  
38 Contemporary Media, Inc. v. FCC, 214 F.3d 187, 196 (D.C. Cir. 2000).  See also Section 312(a)(2) of the Act, 
which provides that the Commission may revoke any license for false statements knowingly made either in the 
application or in any statement of fact that may be required pursuant to Section 308; because of conditions coming 
to the attention of the Commission that would warrant it in refusing to grant a license application; or for willful or 
repeated violation of, or willful or repeated failure to observe any provision of the Act or any rule or regulation of 
the Commission.  47 U.S.C. § 312(a).
39 WHW Enterprises, Inc. v. FCC, 753 F.2d 1132, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (citing RKO General, Inc. v. FCC, 670 
F.2d 215, 232 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 927 (1982); Nick J. Chaconas, 28 F.C.C.2d 231, 233 
(1971)).
40 See Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Amendment of Rules of Broadcast 
Practice and Procedure Relating to Written Responses to Commission Inquiries and the Making of 
Misrepresentations to the Commission by Permittees and Licensees, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 
F.C.C.2d 1179, 1210-11 ¶¶ 60-61 (1986), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986) (“Character 
Policy Statement”).  See also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Amendment of 
Part 1, the Rules of Practice and Procedure, Relating to Written Responses to Commission Inquiries and the 
Making of Misrepresentations to the Commission by Applicants, Permittees, and Licensees, and the Reporting of 
Information Regarding Character Qualifications, Policy Statement and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3252 (1990), 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 3448 (1991), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 6564
(1992) (“1990 Character Policy Statement”).  The Commission applies its broadcast character standards to 
applicants and licensees in the other radio services.  See, e.g.,1990 Character Policy Statement, 5 FCC Rcd at 3253 
¶ 10 (adopting 47 C.F.R. § 1.17 to apply prohibition against misrepresentations and material omissions to 
applicants, licensees, and permittees in all radio services); Ronald Brasher, Decision, 19 FCC Rcd 18,462 (2004) 
(affirming Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Decision revoking, denying, or dismissing licensees’ private land 
mobile radio licenses and applications based on the licensees’ misrepresentations and lack of candor, unauthorized 
transfers of control, and abuse of process).  
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1355
9
17. The evidence before us indicates that Comtec may have omitted or misrepresented facts 
material to its ownership and its eligibility for designated entity status, and thereby lacked candor before 
the Commission, by failing to disclose its real parties in interest in its short-form application for Auction 
No. 7. By disregarding the Bureau’s LOI, Comtec has also failed to inform the Commission of the facts 
necessary for us to determine the ownership of the company and whether a transfer of control has 
occurred.  In addition, because Comtec has not responded to our inquiry, it has prevented us from 
ascertaining the identity of the real parties to the Waiver Request.  In short, Comtec has failed to inform 
the Commission of the facts it needs to fulfill its statutory mandate to assign and regulate spectrum 
licenses in the public interest.     
18. It is possible that the ownership information Comtec reported in its short-form application 
was correct, that Comtec did not transfer control of the Licenses, and that the ownership information in 
the FCC Form 602 filed in September 2006 was wrong.  However, Comtec has neither filed any 
corrections to this FCC Form 602 nor responded to the LOI in which we sought an explanation of the 
inconsistencies between the FCC Form 602 and Comtec’s short-form application for Auction No. 7.  If 
these inconsistencies were the result of inadvertent error, it would have been a simple matter for Comtec 
to have responded to our LOI and to have explained the facts.  Because it has not done so, we find that it 
is reasonable to infer that the discrepancies in the ownership information submitted to the Commission 
are evidence of either an unauthorized transfer of control of the Licenses or a misrepresentation of 
Comtec’s ownership on its short-form application, or both. Given the seriousness of such possible rule 
violations, and in the absence of sufficient factual information, we cannot consider the merits of any 
request for a waiver of the automatic cancellation of the Licenses and therefore deny the Waiver Request. 
Moreover, we reserve our right to seek enforcement action with respect to Comtec’s failure to respond to 
our LOI and other possible rule violations as they relate to the Licenses and to any other Commission 
licenses that Comtec may hold.
19. The Waiver Request states that SkyTec “has been serving over 10,000 subscribers.”41 To the 
extent Comtec continued operating on the Licenses after their automatic cancellation on December 2, 
1997, it did so without Commission authorization and therefore in violation of the Commission’s rules.42
Comtec did not seek an STA for the Licenses until August 12, 2003.43 Nevertheless, the Commission is 
committed to avoiding unnecessary disruptions in service to the public, and the Bureau has the authority 
to grant STAs to allow former licensees to continue providing service after licenses cancel or terminate.44
Indeed, we have granted STAs to parties whose licenses have canceled automatically.45  
(Continued from previous page)    
41 Waiver Request at 3.
42 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.903(a), 1.931(a).  
43  See supra note 4.
44 47 C.F.R. § 1.931(a); Pinpoint Wireless, Inc., Request for a Waiver and Extension of the Broadband PCS 
Construction Requirements, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 1904, 1910 ¶¶ 12-13 (WTB/Comm.Wir.Div. 2003) (denying 
waiver and extension of construction deadlines and sua sponte granting STA).
45 See, e.g., In Re Southeast Telephone Inc., Request for Special Temporary Authority to Operate Facilities in the 
Williamson, West Virginia-Pikeville, Kentucky Basic Trading Area, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 15,702 
(WTB/Comm.Wir.Div. 2000) (granting STA following automatic license cancellation for failure to make timely 
installment payments).
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1355
10
20. In the event Comtec has continued to serve customers since the automatic cancellation of the 
Licenses, we grant Comtec an STA for 180 days from the release of this Order.  In keeping with the 
requirements the Commission has imposed in similar circumstances, Comtec shall, within five days of 
the release of this Order, provide written notice to each of its current subscribers (with a copy of such 
notice forwarded to the Commission) that it is not a licensee for the Licenses; that it is authorized to 
provide service only under a grant of special temporary authority for 180 days from the release of this 
Order; and that subscribers must make arrangements with another carrier to obtain continued service at 
the end of this 180-day period (“STA Period”). After the expiration of the STA Period, Comtec will not 
be authorized to provide further service on the Licenses and shall cease any and all operations on the 
spectrum that had been assigned under the Licenses.  Further, Comtec shall notify the Commission of its 
cessation of operations and shall provide the date upon which its operations ceased, which in no event 
may be later than 180 days from the release of this Order.  Finally, under the limited authority granted, 
Comtec is not permitted to solicit or add new subscribers in any of the market areas of the Licenses.
IV. CONCLUSION
21. We conclude that, given Comtec’s failure to respond to the Bureau’s LOI, to explain its 
ownership structure, and to explain the evidence in the record that it may have committed serious 
violations of the Act and the Commission’s rules, Comtec’s qualifications to be a Commission licensee
are in serious doubt.  Because Comtec has not provided us with adequate information regarding these 
matters, we are unable to consider a request for a waiver of the automatic cancellation rule and 
reinstatement of the Licenses and we therefore deny the Waiver Request.  We dismiss as moot Comtec’s 
applications for renewal of the Licenses and its requests for waiver of the requirement of filing renewal 
applications electronically.  To the extent Comtec is providing service using the Licenses, we grant it an 
STA for 180 days from the release of this Order consistent with the terms and conditions described 
above.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the request filed on behalf of Comtec Communications, 
Inc., d/b/a SkyTec P.R., Inc., on April 9, 2003, seeking waiver of the Commission’s rules governing 
installment payment deadlines and reinstatement of the Licenses, is DENIED.
23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the applications for renewal of the Licenses, FCC File 
Nos. 0002690264, 0002690265, and 0002690266, and the request for waiver of the requirement of filing 
license renewal applications electronically, filed on behalf of Comtec Communications, Inc., on July 14, 
2006, are DISMISSED AS MOOT.
24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for Special Temporary Authority to continue 
operating on the Licenses, filed on behalf of Comtec Communications, Inc., d/b/a SkyTrackers, Inc., on 
August 12, 2003, is GRANTED subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1355
11
25. This action is taken pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and 309(j), and sections 1.925 and 1.2110(g)(4) of the Commission’s 
rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.925 and 1.2110(g)(4), under authority delegated pursuant to section 0.331 of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.331.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
James D. Schlichting
Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau