Federal Communications Commission DA 12-492 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the matter of 
MUMFORD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 
DISTRICT
Application For Extension of Time to Construct 
Educational Broadband Service Station WLX441
CHEROKEE ISD
Application For Extension of Time to Construct 
Educational Broadband Service Station WLX425
AVOYELLES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD
Application For Extension of Time to Construct 
Educational Broadband Service Station WLX757
GILES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Application For Extension of Time to Construct 
Educational Broadband Service Station WNC209
NORWICH UNIVERSITY
Applications For Extension of Time to Construct 
Educational Broadband Service Station WLX459, 
WLX480, WLX577, WLX635, WLX721, 
WLX809, and WLX810
BERRY HIGH SCHOOL
Application For Extension of Time to Construct 
Educational Broadband Service Station WNC677
HALE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
Application For Extension of Time to Construct 
Educational Broadband Service Station WNC603
WEST ALABAMA HEALTH SERVICES INC
Application For Extension of Time to Construct 
Educational Broadband Service Station WNC433
SWANVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. 0004932350
File Nos. 0004932353
File No. 0004932354
File No. 0004933993
File Nos. 0004934165-0004934171
File No. 0004935945
File No. 0004935947
File No. 0004935951
File No. 0004935957
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-492 
2
Application For Extension of Time to Construct 
Educational Broadband Service Station WLX472
LAWRENCE COUNTY BOARD OF 
EDUCATION
Application For Extension of Time to Construct 
Educational Broadband Service Station WNC210
HALE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Application For Extension of Time to Construct 
Educational Broadband Service Station WNC604
WAYNE COUNTY BD OF EDUCATION
Application For Extension of Time to Construct 
Educational Broadband Service Station WNC327
WALTONVILLE COMMUNITY UNIT #1
Application For Extension of Time to Construct 
Educational Broadband Service Station WLX711
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. 0004935959
File No. 0004936205
File No. 0004936215
File No. 0004944835
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  Month 28, 2012 Released:  Month 29, 2012
By the Deputy Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny a series of requests1 seeking 
extensions of the November 1, 2011 deadline for Educational Broadband service (“EBS”) licensees.  
These licensees have failed to show that they acted with the requisite diligence or that their failure to meet 
the deadline was caused by circumstances beyond their control.  We also declare the licenses terminated 
as of November 1, 2011.
  
1 File Nos. 0004932350, 0004932353, 0004932354, 0004933993, 0004934165-0004934171, 0004935947, 
0004935951, 0004935957, 0004935959, 0004936205, 0004936215, 0004944835 (collectively, “Extension 
Applications”).  We are considering these applications together because they largely present the same facts and 
make the same arguments.
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-492 
3
II. BACKGROUND
2. On April 27, 2006, the Commission adopted new construction requirements applicable to 
all BRS and EBS licensees, which were codified at Section 27.14(o) of the Commission’s Rules.2 Under 
Section 27.14(o), all BRS and EBS licensees were required to demonstrate substantial service on or 
before May 1, 2011.3 The Commission defines substantial service as a level of service, which is sound, 
favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant 
renewal.4 A BRS or EBS licensee may make a showing based on meeting the definition of substantial 
service or based on meeting one of the general safe harbors provided by the Commission in Section 
27.14(o)(1) of the Commission’s Rules.5 In addition, an EBS licensee may make a showing under the 
educational “safe harbor” the Commission specifically adopted for EBS licensees in Section 27.14(o)(2) 
of the Commission’s Rules.6 Many EBS licensees have demonstrated substantial service by meeting this 
safe harbor.7
3. Except for Hale County Board of Education (“Hale County”), Wayne County Bd of 
Education (“Wayne County”), and Waltonville Community Unit #1 (“Waltonville”), each of the above-
captioned licensees filed timely request for extension of the November 1, 2011 substantial service 
deadline between October 28, 2011 and November 1, 2011.8 Hale County, Wayne County and 
  
2 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 Report and Order, WT Docket No. 03-66, 21 FCC Rcd 5606, 5718-5736 274-310 (2006) (BRS/EBS Second 
R&O).  
3 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(o).  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 Report and Order, WT Docket No. 03-66, 21 FCC Rcd 5606, 5718-5736 ¶¶ 274-
310 (2006) (BRS/EBS Second R&O).  
4 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(o).
5 An EBS or a BRS licensee could meet the substantial service requirement by showing that it meets one or more of 
the following five general safe harbors: that it constructed six permanent links per one million people for licensees 
providing fixed point-to-point services; that it provided coverage of at least 30 percent of the population of the 
licensed area for licensees providing mobile services or fixed point-to-multipoint services; that it provided service to 
“rural areas” or areas with limited access to telecommunications services; that it provided specialized or 
technologically sophisticated service; or that it provided service to niche markets.  47 C.F.R. § 27.14(o)(1).
6 Under the educational “safe harbor,” an EBS licensee is deemed to be providing substantial service with respect to 
all channels it holds if: it is using its spectrum (or spectrum to which its educational services are shifted) to provide 
educational services within its GSA; the services it provides are actually being used to serve the educational mission 
of one or more accredited public or private schools, colleges or universities providing formal educational and 
cultural development to enrolled students; and the level of service it provides meets or exceeds the minimum usage 
requirements specified in the Commission’s rules.  47 C.F.R. § 27.14(o)(2).
7 The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has accepted over 2,100 substantial service notifications from EBS 
licensees who complied with the November 1, 2011 deadline.
8 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(e) (request for extension of time to demonstrate coverage must be filed before expiration of 
coverage period).
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-492 
4
Waltonville filed untimely extension applications on November 2 or November 8, 2011.9 Each of the 
applicants amended their applications on January 27, 2012.10 The applications are unopposed.
4. Most of the applicants are small, rural schools or school districts.11 Norwich University 
is a nationally accredited private university serving military and traditional students, both online and at its 
campus in Northfield, Vermont.12 West Alabama Health Services, Inc. (“West Alabama”) is a provider of 
health services in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.13 Mumford Independent School District (“Mumford”), Cherokee 
ISD (“Cherokee”), and Avoyelles Parish School Board (“Avoyelles”) describe themselves as too small to 
attract the interests of smaller operators but lacking the budget to build facilities on their own.14 Those 
entities report that they engaged in negotiations with small commercial operators but that they were 
unable to reach agreements with those operators.15 The other applicants report that they had 
“development agreements” with unnamed commercial operators under which the operators agreed to 
construct wireless systems for the licensees.16 The unnamed operator(s) allegedly “never followed 
through with their commitment to preserve the license for the Licensee,” and the licensees were unable to 
build out the licenses themselves prior to the deadline.17
5. Each of the applicants now reports that they have found a partner and have developed a 
plan for building an educationally focused, wireless broadband system utilizing their licenses.18 They 
state that equipment for these systems have been identified, and represent that such equipment will be 
  
9 File Nos. 0004936205, 0004936215 (filed Nov. 2, 2011); File No. 0004944835 (filed Nov. 8, 2011).  In light of our 
action, we do not decide whether Hale County, Wayne County, and Waltonville have justified a waiver to allow late 
filing of their extension applications.
10 Amendments (filed Jan. 27, 2012).  Each of the applicants filed amendments that were substantively identical.
11 File No. 0004932350, Extension and Waiver Request (filed Oct. 28, 2011) (“Mumford Exhibit”) at 1; File No. 
0004932353, Extension and Waiver Request (filed Oct. 28, 2011) (“Cherokee Exhibit”) at 1; File No. 0004932354, 
Extension and Waiver Request (filed Oct. 28, 2011) (“Avoyelles Exhibit”) at 1; File No. 0004933993, Extension 
and Waiver Request (filed Oct. 31, 2011) (“Giles County Exhibit”) at 1; File No. 0004935945, Extension and 
Waiver Request (filed Nov. 1, 2011) (“Berry High Exhibit”) at 1; File No. 0004935947, Extension and Waiver 
Request (filed Nov. 1, 2011) (“Hale County High Exhibit”) at 1; File No. 0004935957, Extension and Waiver 
Request (filed Nov. 1, 2011) (“Swanville Exhibit”) at 1; File No. 0004935959, Extension and Waiver Request (filed 
Nov. 1, 2011) (“Lawrence County Exhibit”) at 1; File No. 0004936205, Extension and Waiver Request (filed Nov. 
2, 2011) (“Hale County BOE Exhibit”) at 1; File No. 0004936215, Extension and Waiver Request (filed Nov. 2, 
2011) (“Wayne County Exhibit”) at 1; File No. 0004944835, Extension and Waiver Request (filed Nov. 8, 2011) 
(“Waltonville Exhibit”) at 1.
12 File No. 0004934165, Extension and Waiver Request (filed Oct. 31, 2011) (“Norwich Exhibit”) at 1.
13 File No. 0004935951, Extension and Waiver Request (filed Nov. 1, 2011) (“West Alabama Health Exhibit”) at 1.
14 File No. 0004932350, Extension and Waiver Request (filed Oct. 28, 2011) (“Mumford Exhibit”) at 1; File No. 
0004932353, Extension and Waiver Request (filed Oct. 28, 2011) (“Cherokee Exhibit”) at 1; File No. 0004932354, 
Extension and Waiver Request (filed Oct. 28, 2011) (“Avoyelles Exhibit”) at 1.
15 Mumford Exhibit at 1; Cherokee Exhibit at 1; Avoyelles Exhibit at 1.
16 Giles County Exhibit at 1; Norwich Exhibit at 1; Berry High Exhibit at 1; Hale County High Exhibit at 1; West 
Alabama Health Exhibit at 1; Swanville Exhibit at 1; Lawrence County Exhibit 1; Hale County BOE Exhibit at 1; 
Wayne County Exhibit at 1; Waltonville Exhibit at 1.
17 Giles County Exhibit at 1; Norwich Exhibit at 1; Berry High Exhibit at 1; Hale County High Exhibit at 1; West 
Alabama Health Exhibit at 1; Swanville Exhibit at 1; Lawrence County Exhibit 1; Hale County BOE Exhibit at 1; 
Wayne County Exhibit at 1; Waltonville Exhibit at 1.
18 Amendments.
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-492 
5
ordered and shipped within days after their extension applications.19 The applicants represent that the 
planned systems will provide an extension of their wired Internet service to locations within their campus 
to provide much?needed broadband to facilities lacking Internet access.20  Each applicant requests an 
extension until May 1, 2012.21
III. DISCUSSION
6. An extension request for a coverage requirement may be granted “if the licensee shows 
that failure to meet the construction deadline is due to involuntary loss of site or other causes beyond its 
control.”22 Section 1.946(e)(2) of the Commission’s Rules specifically precludes us from granting a 
construction extension request based on a licensee’s failure to obtain financing.23 The Commission has 
consistently found that licensee business decisions are not circumstances beyond the licensee’s control 
and are not the basis for regulatory relief.24 Moreover, the Commission has held that a licensee cannot 
rely on a third party’s failure to perform as justification for a construction extension.25  
7. Viewed under these standards, we conclude that the applicants have not justified an 
extension of time to construct.  To the extent Mumford, Cherokee, and Avoyelles lacked the financial 
resources to construct their stations, our rules preclude granting an extension under those circumstances.26  
Furthermore, those applicants made a voluntary business decision to rely on negotiations with outside 
parties that were not successful.  The other parties cite to a failure to perform by third party providers, but 
as noted above, such failure is not a basis for an extension.  Furthermore, none of the applicants have 
made any serious attempt to show that they were diligent in pursuing their negotiations or in monitoring 
their partners.  
  
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 See, e.g., Mumford Exhibit at 3.  The other applicants make similar requests.
22 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(e)(1).
23 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(e)(2).
24 See, e.g., Redwood Wireless Minnesota, LLC, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 22416 (WTB CWD 2002) (construction delays 
resulting from business disputes were exercise of business judgment and were not outside Petitioner’s control); 
Eldorado Communications LLC, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 24613 (WTB CWD 2002) (licensee’s determination to initially 
deploy TDMA system and subsequently to adopt GSM with months remaining before construction deadline was 
business decision within its control); Bristol MAS Partners, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 5007 (WTB PSPWD 1999) 
(equipment installation or delivery not delayed for some unique reason and licensee failing to obtain equipment was 
business decision); AAT Electronics Corporation, 93 FCC 2d 1034 (1983) (decision not to market service 
aggressively because of equipment uncertainties is within licensee's control); Business Radio Communications 
Systems, Inc., 102 FCC 2d 714 (1985) (construction delay caused by zoning challenge not a circumstance beyond 
licensee's control); Texas Two-Way, Inc., 98 FCC 2d 1300 (1984), aff'd sub nom., Texas Two-Way, Inc. v. FCC, 762 
F.2d 138 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (licensee is responsible for delay resulting from interference caused by construction 
adjacent to construction site because site selection was an independent business decision).
25 See e.g., Daniel R. Goodman, Receiver, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 8537, 8548 ¶ 24 (1995) 
(investor reliance on fraudulent company does not excuse compliance with Commission rules); Kansas City 
Wireless Partners LLP, Letter, 24 FCC Rcd 8625, 8627 (WTB MD 2009); Stephen E. Coran, Esquire, Letter, 22 
FCC Rcd 1921, 1923 (WTB MD 2007) (reliance on third party for financing does not justify extension).
26 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(e)(2).
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-492 
6
8. We note the promises made by the applicants to promptly order equipment and build 
wireless broadband systems, but conclude that those promises come too late to support an extension.  
Applicants argue that an extension will allow them to help meet the goals outlined in the Commission’s 
National Broadband Plan by bringing valuable services to communities that are currently substantially 
underserved by broadband Internet options.27 They also claim that they are now in a position to use their 
licenses to further their educational mission.28  In the absence of evidence that the applicants acted 
diligently prior to the November 1, 2011 deadline, we find that these future promises to act are 
insufficient.  Our rules state that ordering equipment within 90 days after initial license grant will be 
presumed to constitute diligent action.29 None of the applicants cite any authority for the proposition that 
promises made after the construction deadline should be considered.
9. We also conclude that the applicants have failed to justify a waiver of the November 1, 
2011 substantial service deadline.  To be granted a waiver, the applicants must show that either (1) 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 (2) in view of the unique 
or unusual 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.30 The 
underlying purpose of the EBS substantial service requirement is to fulfill our statutory duty to “ensure 
prompt delivery of service to rural areas, … prevent stockpiling or warehousing of spectrum by licensees 
or permittees, and . . . promote investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services.”31  
Applicants argue that because they are now working promptly to construct facilities, it would frustrate the 
underlying purpose of the rule to deny an extension.32 They argue that if an extension is denied, the 
spectrum will lie fallow for years.33 We reject this argument.  EBS licensees timely built out over 2,100 
licenses by the November 1, 2011 deadline.  In light of the applicants’ lack of diligence, we believe 
granting these extensions would send the wrong signal to those licensees who acted diligently to provide 
service.  Granting these extensions would hinder our ability to strictly enforce construction requirements 
and meet our statutory duties.  We therefore conclude that granting waivers would be inconsistent with 
the underlying purpose of the EBS substantial service requirement.
10. The applicants have also failed to justify a waiver under the second prong of the waiver 
standard.  Applicants argue that they are entitled to a waiver because they “took reasonable steps 
necessary to ensure that [they] would be able to demonstrate substantial service before the November 1, 
2011 deadline.”34 We disagree.  The Applicants passively relied on third parties in the hope that the third 
parties would construct facilities for them.  As noted above, such reliance is not a valid basis for an 
extension.  Applicants also contend that it would be “contrary to the public interest to deny the waiver and 
potentially require the return of the spectrum to the Commission when the Licensee has shown that they 
  
27 See, e.g.,  Mumford Exhibit at 1.
28 See, e.g.,  Mumford Exhibit at 1.
29 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(e)(2).
30 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3); see also Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 
1990); WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969), aff'd, 459 F.2d 1203 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 
1027 (1972); 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.  
31 BRS/EBS Second Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 5720 ¶ 278, citing 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B).
32 See, e.g., Mumford Exhibit at 2.
33See, e.g., Mumford Exhibit at 2.
34 See, e.g., Mumford Exhibit at 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-492 
7
are highly motivated to use their spectrum to bring much?needed broadband services to their unserved, 
rural community that is utterly lacking in broadband.”35 Initially, we question the applicants’ motivation 
to provide services when no concrete actions were taken to provide service prior to the November 1, 2011 
deadline.  Moreover, the applicants ignore the Commission’s countervailing duty, as charged by 
Congress, to “ensure prompt delivery of service to rural areas, … prevent stockpiling or warehousing of 
spectrum by licensees or permittees, and . . . promote investment in and rapid deployment of new 
technologies and services.”  Applicants have also failed to explain why it would be inequitable or unduly 
burdensome to enforce the substantial service deadline when most EBS licensees, including many 
licensees in rural areas, were able to meet that deadline.
11. An authorization for an EBS license automatically terminates if the licensee fails to meet 
construction or coverage requirements.36 In light of our conclusion that grant of these extension 
applications are not in the public interest, we find that the licenses automatically terminated on November 
1, 2011, the date that EBS licensees were required to demonstrate substantial service.  We will therefore 
deny the Extension Applications and Waiver Requests.
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES
12. The applicants have failed to justify an extension of time to meet the substantial service 
deadline for their stations or to justify a waiver of the November 1, 2011 deadline for establishing 
substantial service.  We therefore deny the Extension Applications and Waiver Requests and declare that 
the licenses automatically terminated as of November 1, 2011.
13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Section 1.946 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.946, that the above-captioned extension applications and waiver 
requests (File Nos. 0004932350, 0004932353, 0004932354, 0004933993, 0004934165-0004934171, 
0004935945, 0004935947, 0004935951, 0004935957, 0004935959, 0004936205, and  0004944835) filed 
between October 28, 2011 and November 7, 2011 ARE DENIED.
14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the 
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.955(a)(2) of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.955(a)(2), that the licenses for Stations WLX441, WLX425, 
WLX757, WNC209, WLX459, WLX480, WLX577, WLX635, WLX721, WLX809, WLX810, 
WNC677, WNC603, WNC433, WLX472, WNC210, WNC604, WNC327, and WLX711 ARE 
DECLARED TERMINATED as of November 1, 2011.
15. 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
John J. Schauble
Deputy Chief, Broadband Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
  
35 See, e.g., Mumford Exhibit at 2.
36 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.955(a)(2).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(o).