Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1375
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Applications of Cellco Partnership d/b/a
Verizon Wireless and SpectrumCo LLC and Cox 
TMI, LLC For Consent To Assign AWS-1 
Licenses
Applications of Verizon Wireless and Leap for 
Consent To Exchange Lower 700 MHz, AWS-1, 
and PCS Licenses
Applications of T-Mobile License LLC and Cellco 
Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless for Consent to 
Assign Licenses 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 12-4
ULS File Nos. 0004942973, 0004942992, 
0004952444, 0004949596, and 0004949598
WT Docket 12-175
ORDER
Adopted:  August 21, 2012 Released:  August 21, 2012
By the Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
1. On May 9, 2012, pursuant to the terms of the Second Protective Order,1 Public Knowledge 
challenged the designation as Highly Confidential of certain portions of the Joint Operating Entity 
Agreement (“JOE Agreement”) submitted in WT Docket No. 12-4.2 On May 16, 2012, Comcast Corp., 
Verizon Wireless, Time Warner Cable Inc., and Bright House Networks, LLC (collectively, the “JOE 
Members”), filed a response, arguing that the section in question was competitively sensitive and properly 
designated as Highly Confidential.3 Public Knowledge filed a Reply on May 25, 2012.4  For the reasons 
stated below, we find that the material at issue should not be designated as Highly Confidential but should 
instead be designated as Confidential.
2. Public Knowledge argues that Article VII of the JOE Agreement, which deals with the 
governance, management and licensing of technology of the JOE, should be made public.  It argues that 
the material does not contain any commercially sensitive information or trade secrets, and is therefore not 
entitled to either Confidential or Highly Confidential status under the protective orders issued in this 
  
1 Application of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and SpectrumCo LLC for Consent to Assign Licenses, 
WT Docket No. 12-4, Second Protective Order, DA 12-51 (Jan. 17, 2012) (“Second Protective Order”).
2 Challenge to Confidentiality Designation of Public Knowledge, WT Docket No. 12-4 (May 15, 2012).
3 Letter from Michael H. Hammer, Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Attorney for Comcast; John T. Scott, Katherine R. 
Saunders, Verizon, Michael E. Glover, Of Counsel for Verizon; Daniel Brenner, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Attorney 
for Bright House Networks; Matthew Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, Attorney for Time Warner Cable, WT Docket 
No. 12-4 (May 16, 2012) (“JOE Members Response”).
4 Reply to Opposition to Confidentiality Challenge, WT Docket No. 12-4 (May 25, 2012).  In addition, the 
Communication Workers of America filed a letter on May 15, 2012, supporting Public Knowledge’s challenge.  
Letter from Debbie Goldman, Telecommunications Policy Director, Communications Workers of America, WT 
Docket No. 12-4 (May 15, 2012).
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1375
2
proceeding.5 The JOE Members disagree and claim that disclosure would cause them competitive harm.  
The provisions at issue detail how the JOE board operates, how decisions are made (including details as 
to voting), and how JOE Members may license the technology in certain circumstances.  The JOE 
Members argue that disclosure would provide competitors with insight into their decision-making 
processes, and that the ability of competitors to know the details of how and when technology would and 
would not be licensed would provide them with a competitive advantage.6 Finally, the JOE Members 
argue that even if the information does not contain some of their most sensitive business data, as required 
to be designated as Highly Confidential under the Second Protective Order, the information is at least 
entitled to protection as Confidential under the First Protective Order because it contains sensitive 
commercial information.7 Public Knowledge, while continuing to argue that the material should be made 
public, recognizes that it might be prudent to allow the material to be designated as Confidential to 
encourage parties to file such information voluntarily.8
3. We conclude that the information is not entitled to be protected as Highly Confidential.  We 
find that the JOE Members have not shown how the governance details of the JOE constitute some of 
their most sensitive business information.  Moreover, the details of how the JOE Members may license 
technology from the JOE have been superseded by a consent decree entered into between the JOE 
Members and the United States Department of Justice.9 However, we decline to hold that the JOE 
Members may not designate the details of the JOE Agreement as Confidential.  While the existence of the 
JOE Agreement is public, the details of the agreement as originally negotiated by the parties are not.  We 
credit the statements of the JOE Members that the details of the JOE Agreement as negotiated among the
parties are commercially sensitive and that public release of that information could provide competitors 
with a competitive advantage in the marketplace.10
  
5 Application of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and SpectrumCo LLC for Consent to Assign Licenses, 
WT Docket No. 12-4, Protective Order, DA 12-50 (Jan. 17, 2012) (“First Protective Order”); Second Protective 
Order.
6 JOE Members Response at 3-5.
7 Id. at 5-6.
8 See Letter from John Bergmayer, Senior Staff Attorney, Public Knowledge, WT Docket No. 12-4 (Aug. 20, 2012). 
9 Stipulation and Order and Proposed Final Judgment, United States and State of New York v. Verizon 
Communications Inc., Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Comcast Corp., Time Warner Cable Inc., Cox 
Communications, Inc. and Bright House Networks, LLC, No. 1:12-cv-02354 (D.D.C. filed Aug. 16, 2012).
10 This decision does not constitute a resolution of the merits concerning whether such information would be 
released publicly by the Commission upon a proper request under our rules implementing the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1375
3
4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT the motion by Public Knowledge to make certain 
documents and information publicly available IS GRANTED to the extent that the material at issue shall 
be designated as Confidential under the First Protective Order.
5. 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
Blaise A. Scinto
Chief, Broadband Division, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau