Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1333 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the matter of 
HAMSHIRE FANNETT HIGH SCHOOL 
Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement 
and Waiver Request for Educational Broadband 
Service Station WNC427
FOLKSTON MIDDLE SCHOOL
Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement 
and Waiver Request for Educational Broadband 
Service Station WLX632
LOUSIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND 
MECHANICAL & AGRICULTURAL 
COLLEGE
Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement 
and Waiver Request for Educational Broadband 
Service Station WLX971
AUTAUGA COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL 
SYSTEM
Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement 
and Waiver Request for Educational Broadband 
Service Station WNC219
ROTAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Petition for Reconsideration and for Waiver of 
Deadline Permitting Late-Filed Application for 
Renewal for Educational Broadband Service 
Station WNC253
CHIPPEWA VALLEY TECHNICAL COLLEGE
Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement 
and Waiver Request for Educational Broadband
Service Stations WLX260, WLX268 and 
WLX310
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1333
2
ROBY CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT 
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement 
and Waiver Request for Educational Broadband 
Service Station WNC336
PALMER SCHOOL DISTRICT #49
Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement 
and Waiver Request for Educational Broadband 
Service Station WNC481
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  June 15, 2009 Released:  June 16, 2009
By the Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We have before us the above-captioned petitions for reconsideration1 of letters2 terminating 
the above-referenced Educational Broadband Service (EBS) licenses for failure to renew their licenses and 
for failure to meet their construction deadline.  Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint Nextel) opposed all of 
the Petitions.3 We also have replies filed by Hamshire Fannett High School (HFHS),4 Folkston Middle 
  
1 Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement and Waiver Request, Hamshire Fannett High School (filed Nov. 
17, 2007) (HFHS Petition); Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement and Waiver Request, Folkston Middle 
School (filed Nov. 17, 2007) (Folkston Petition); Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement and Waiver
Request, Louisiana State University and Mechanical and Agricultural College (filed Nov. 17, 2007) (LA State 
Petition); Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement and Waiver Request, Autauga County Public School 
System (filed Nov. 16, 2007) (Autauga Petition); Petition for Reconsideration and for Waiver of Deadline 
Permitting Late-Filed Application for Renewal, Rotan Independent School District (filed Nov. 16, 2007) (Rotan 
Petition); Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement and Waiver Request, Chippewa Valley Technical College 
(filed Nov. 16, 2007) (Chippewa Petition); Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement and Waiver Request, 
Roby Consolidated Independent School District (filed Nov. 14,  2007) (Roby Petition); Petition for Reconsideration 
and Reinstatement and Waiver Request, Palmer School District #49 (filed Nov. 14, 2007) (Palmer Petition) 
(collectively, Petitions).
2 Letter from Joel D. Taubenblatt, Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to Hamshire 
Fannett High School (Oct. 19, 2007); Letter from Joel D. Taubenblatt, Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau to Folkston Middle School (Oct. 19, 2007); Letter from Joel D. Taubenblatt, Chief, 
Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to LA State Univ and Mech & Agric College (Oct. 19, 
2007); Letter from Joel D. Taubenblatt, Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to 
Autauga County Public School System (Oct. 19, 2007); Letter from Joel D. Taubenblatt, Chief, Broadband Division, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to Rotan Independent School District (Oct. 19, 2007); Letters from Joel D. 
Taubenblatt, Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to Chippewa Valley Technical 
College (Oct. 19, 2007); Letter from Joel D. Taubenblatt, Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau to Roby Consolidated Independent School District (Oct. 19, 2007); Letter from Joel D. Taubenblatt, Chief, 
Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to Palmer School District #49 (Oct. 19, 2007) 
(Termination Letters).
3 Opposition of Sprint Nextel Corporation (Nov. 21, 2007) (Sprint Opposition).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1333
3
School (Folkston)5 and LA State University and Mechanical & Agricultural College (LA State).6 Except 
for Rotan, Petitioners have also manually filed late-filed renewal and extension applications7 with requests 
for waiver of Sections 1.949(a) and 1.946(e) of the Commission’s Rules8 to permit their late-filed renewal 
and extension applications to be accepted and processed.  For the reasons stated below, we deny the 
Petitions and dismiss with prejudice the Applications. 
II. BACKGROUND
2. Under the rules in effect prior to 2003, EBS permittees had eighteen months from the date of 
the issuance of the original authorization to construct their facilities.9 The Commission granted 
applications for extension of time to construct EBS stations upon a specific and detailed narrative showing 
that the failure to complete construction was due to causes that were beyond the permittee’s control, or 
upon a specific and detailed showing of other sufficient justification for an extension.10 Applications for 
extension of time to construct were ordinarily required to have been filed at least 30 days prior to the 
construction deadline.11 In those cases where a station is not constructed by the deadline specified in the 
permit or as extended by the Commission, the rules required the Commission to declare the permit 
forfeited and make a notation of such forfeiture.12  
3. On April 2, 2003, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in this 
proceeding, seeking comment on an industry proposal as well as other potential alternatives for 
restructuring the 2500-2690 MHz band.13 In addition to the Coalition’s proposal, the Commission also 
sought comment on ownership and eligibility issues, transition timetables, and additional engineering 
issues.  In light of the fundamental rule changes proposed, the Commission suspended the construction 
deadline for EBS licensees “that have unexpired licenses or permits that have not expired as of [April 2, 
2003] and that have made a timely filed extension request.”14 None of the stations referenced in this Order 
  
(...continued from previous page)
4 Reply to Opposition of Hamshire Fannett High School (filed Nov. 30, 2007).
5 Reply to Opposition of Folkston Middle School (filed Nov. 30, 2007).
6 Reply to Opposition of LA State Univ and Mech & Agric College (filed Nov. 30, 2007).
7 See HFHS Petition at Exhibits B and C; Folkston Petition at Exhibits B and C; LA State Petition at Exhibits B and 
C; Autauga Petition at Exhibit A; Chippewa Petition at Exhibit B; Roby Petition at Exhibit A; Palmer Petition at 
Exhibit A (collectively, Applications).
8 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.949(a), 1.946(e). 
9 47 C.F.R. § 73.3534(a) (2002).
10 47 C.F.R. § 73.3534(c) (2002).
11 47 C.F.R. § 73.3534(b) (2002).
12 47 C.F.R. § 73.3599 (2002).
13 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; 
Part 1 of the Commission's Rules - Further Competitive Bidding Procedures; Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to 
Enable  Multipoint Distribution Service and the Instructional Television Fixed Service Amendment of Parts 21 and 
74 to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions; Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules With 
Regard to Licensing in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service for the Gulf 
of Mexico; WT Docket Nos. 03-66, 03-67, 02-68, MM Docket No. 97-217, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 6722 (2003) (BRS/EBS NPRM).
14 BRS/EBS NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6805 ¶ 201.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1333
4
on Reconsideration were ever constructed and none of the Petitioners filed timely requests for extension of 
time to construct.  As a result, in 2007, WTB issued letters terminating all of the above-captioned 
licenses.15
4. Once the Petitioners received notice of termination of the licenses, each of the licensees filed 
petitions for reconsideration along with late-filed applications for renewal of license and extension of time 
to construct.16 In connection with the applications, Petitioners sought waiver of Sections 1.949(a)17 of the 
Commission’s Rules, which requires licensees to file their renewal applications no later than the expiration 
date of the license and Section 1.946(e),18 which requires that extension applications be filed prior to the 
construction deadline.  The Petitioners generally indicated that they failed to file timely extension requests 
and/or renewal applications because of changes in personnel and lack of familiarity with the Commission’s 
rules,19 or reliance upon lessees that filed for bankruptcy and went out of business.20  
5. Sprint Nextel filed an Opposition against the above-captioned Petitions.21 Sprint Nextel 
claims that the licenses at issue were terminated years ago when the licensees failed to comply with their 
construction obligations and any applications to renew the licenses are subject to the notice requirements 
in the Administrative Procedure Act and Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
the standards established for late-filed renewals applicable to EBS, and the Commission’s freeze on 
applications for new EBS stations.22
III. DISCUSSION
6. We note, as an initial matter, that Petitioners do not challenge the Bureau's finding that, at the 
time the Termination Letters were issued, the Petitioners had not made filings with the Bureau asserting 
compliance with the Commission’s construction and renewal requirements or seeking extensions thereof.23  
  
15 See Termination Letters.  The Termination Letters also noted that the licenses for the stations in question had 
expired and that the licensees had failed to file an application for renewal of license.  Id.  Because the failure to meet 
the construction deadline provides an independent basis for terminating the licenses, we will not discuss the failure 
to renew the licenses further, except as noted below with respect to Station WLX310.
16 See Applications.
17 47 C.F.R. § 1.949(a).
18 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(e).
19 See HFHS Petition at 1-2; Folkston Petition at 1-2; LA State Petition at 1-2; Autauga Petition at 2; Rotan Petition 
at 1; Chippewa Petition at 3; Roby Petition at 2; Palmer Petition at 2.  
20 See HFHS Petition at 1-2; Folkston Petition at 1-2; LA State Petition at 1-2; Autauga Petition at 2; Chippewa 
Petition at 3; Roby Petition at 2; Palmer Petition at 2.
21 See Sprint Opposition.
22 Id.
23 We not that Chippewa provides a letter purporting to report that Station WLX310 had been constructed.  
Chippewa Petition at 4, Exhibit B.  Chippewa does not provide evidence that the certification was ever filed with the 
Commission and, even assuming the certification was filed, the license for Station WLX310 was still subject to 
termination for failure to renew the license.  The license expired on August 5, 2000.  Under former Section 74.15(e) 
of the Commission’s Rules, which was in effect until January 10, 2005, renewal applications for the Instructional 
Television Fixed Service (ITFS), the predecessor-in-interest to EBS, were due the first day of the fourth full 
calendar month prior to license expiration.  47 C.F.R. § 74.15(e).  Chippewa does not allege that it ever filed an 
application for renewal of license.  The license for Station WLX310 was subject to termination for failure to renew 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1333
5
Rather, Petitioners contend that we should reinstate their licenses due to changed circumstances. 
Specifically, Petitioners assert that the EBS industry was in a state of flux because the Commission was 
considering a number of possible alternatives to the spectrum and a number of former operators had filed 
for bankruptcy protection.24 The Petitioners claim that these circumstances and the fact that the 
Commission eventually adopted new rules for the spectrum constitute new circumstances warranting 
reconsideration.25 We disagree.  
7. Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules provides that we will accept a petition for 
reconsideration relying on facts not previously presented to the Commission only in one of three scenarios: 
(1) 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;26 (2) 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;27 or (3) the designated authority 
determines that consideration of the facts relied on is required in the public interest.28 The circumstances 
Petitioners cite – an ongoing rulemaking proceeding and existing bankruptcy filings by certain former 
operators29 – are not circumstances that have changed or circumstances that could not have been learned by 
the Petitioners since the issuance of the Termination letters.  Moreover, such circumstances have no 
relationship to the continuing requirement to file timely construction extensions and/or renewal 
applications.  Under those circumstances, we conclude that the first two scenarios noted above do not 
apply because Petitioners could have made such arguments prior to the issuance of the Termination 
Letters. 
8. We also find that reconsideration would not be in the public interest.  The Commission has 
noted: “Strict adherence to the principle of administrative finality in licensing matters advances the public 
interest.  This policy promotes the prompt initiation of service without undue delay.”30 Absent a showing 
  
(...continued from previous page)
the authorization.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.955(a)(1).  Accordingly, we deny the Chippewa Petition with respect to Station 
WLX310 because the license expired in 2000.
24 See HFHS Petition at 2; Folkston Petition at 2; LA State Petition at 2-3; Autauga Petition at 3-4; Rotan Petition at 
1-2; Chippewa Petition at 5; Roby Petition at 3; Palmer Petition at 3-4.
25 See HFHS Petition at 2; Folkston Petition at 2; LA State Petition at 2-3; Autauga Petition at 3-4; Rotan Petition at 
1-2; Chippewa Petition at 5; Roby Petition at 3; Palmer Petition at 3-4.
26 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(c)(1)(i).
27 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(c)(1)(ii).
28 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(c)(2).
29 The bankruptcies cited by Petitioners occurred several years ago, and the rule changes made by the Commission 
primarily occurred in 2004 and 2006.  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; Part 1 of the Commission's Rules - Further Competitive Bidding 
Procedures; Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable  Multipoint Distribution Service and the Instructional 
Television Fixed Service Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions; Amendment 
of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules With Regard to Licensing in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the 
Instructional Television Fixed Service for the Gulf of Mexico; WT Docket Nos. 03-66, 03-67, 02-68, MM Docket No. 
97-217, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165 (2004); Order on 
Reconsideration and Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second 
Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5606 (2006).
30 See Crystal Broadcast Partners, Assignor and Thomas E. Ingstad Broadcasting, Inc., Assignee, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 4680 ¶ 6 (1996).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1333
6
of Commission error in terminating the licenses, we believe that reinstating these licenses would be 
inconsistent with the principle of administrative finality and could cause undue disruption to other 
licensees in the band.  If we reinstated these licenses when no good cause has been shown for 
reinstatement, we could cause uncertainty concerning the status of other terminated licenses.  Such 
uncertainty could hinder the plans of active licensees to provide service.  In the absence of any 
demonstration of Commission error, we conclude that the public interest in administrative finality 
outweighs the licensees’ private interest in having their licenses reactivated.
9. We will dismiss the Applications submitted with the Petitions.  Petitioners have no licenses to 
renew or to seek construction extensions on.  Accordingly, we dismiss with prejudice the applications filed 
by the various Petitioners.   
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES
10. For the reasons discussed above, we deny the Petitions and reaffirm the termination of the 
licenses in question.  We also dismiss with prejudice the applications filed by Petitioners.
11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405 , and Sections 0.331 and 1.106 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.331, 1.106, that the petitions for reconsideration filed by Hamshire 
Fannett High School on November 16, 2007, by Folkston Middle School on November 16, 2007, by 
Louisiana State University and Mechanical and Agricultural College on November 16, 2007, by Autauga 
County Public School System on November 16, 2007, by Rotan Independent School District on November 
16, 2007, by Chippewa Valley Technical College on November 16, 2007, by Roby Consolidated 
Independent School District on November 14, 2007, and by Palmer School District #49 on November 14, 
2007 ARE DENIED.
12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 
1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, and Section 1.934(f) of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.934(f), that 
the applications attached to the petitions for reconsideration ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
13. These actions are 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
Blaise A. Scinto
Chief, Broadband Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau