Federal Communications Commission DA 14-411
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATIONAL 
TELEVISION COMMISSION
Educational Broadband Service Stations
WHR465 (B-Group), Conway, SC
WHR609 (G-Group), Lancaster, SC
WHR674 (C-Group), Columbia, SC
WHR933 (C-Group), Walterboro, SC
WHR957 (C-Group), Anderson, SC
WHQ447 (B-Group), White Stone, SC
WND422 (A-Group), Camden, SC
WND451 (A-group), Winnsboro, SC
WND452 (A-Group), Pickens, SC
WND532 (G-Group), Marion, SC
WND533 (G-Group), Beaufort, SC
WND534 (A-Group), Greenwood, SC
Petition for Waiver of Section 27.1206 of the 
Commission’s Rules
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  March 26, 2014 Released:  March 27, 2014
By the Deputy Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny a waiver request filed by South Carolina 
Educational Television Commission (“SCETV”), a State governmental entity and an Educational 
Broadband Service (“EBS”) licensee in South Carolina, asking the Commission to waive its decision not 
to award the EBS stations listed above (“Stations”), which were licensed as secondary studio-to-
transmitter links (“STLs”), a Geographic Service Area (“GSA”). We find that SCETV has failed to show 
how granting the stations “customized” GSAs furthers the Commission’s decision that stations licensed as 
STLs remain subordinate to stations licensed on a primary basis.  We also find that SCETV has failed to 
show how granting the Stations customized GSAs is in the public interest.  
II. BACKGROUND
2. SCETV, a State governmental entity in South Carolina, operates a state-wide EBS (formerly 
known as Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”)) network in the 2500-2690 MHz band (“2.5 
GHz band”), which consists of 65 constructed primary EBS stations that provide multichannel coverage 
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-411
2
of schools and other educational sites across South Carolina.
1
  When SCETV was developing its state-
wide network of 65 primary EBS stations, it applied for and received additional authorization to operate 
the 12 Stations as secondary point-to-point STLs.
2
  SCETV intended to use these stations to relay signals 
from the origination point to primary EBS stations, which, in turn, transmitted SCETV video services 
over wide areas across the State.
3
3. Originally, ITFS stations were licensed on a site-specific basis, operating as either primary 
or secondary point-to-point stations.  In 1991, however, in an effort to promote the development of 
multichannel video programming services that would compete with cable television systems (a/k/a 
“wireless cable” services), the Commission authorized a 15-mile Protected Service Area (“PSA”) to some 
ITFS licensees, specifically, to those ITFS licensees that leased excess capacity to “wireless cable” 
operators.
4
In 1995, these 15-mile PSAs were expanded to 35 miles.
5
  In 1998, to facilitate the 
operational and technical flexibility of the 2.5 GHz band for two-way communication services, the 
Commission adopted the Two-Way Order in which it granted all ITFS licensees a 35-mile PSA, and 
granted individual protection to all receive sites registered through September 17, 1998, the adoption date 
of the Two-Way Order.
6
  In 1999, in the Two-Way Reconsideration Order, the Commission affirmed its 
decision granting all ITFS stations a PSA.
7
  In 2000, in the Two-Way Second Reconsideration Order,
however, the Commission reversed its decision and concluded that point-to-point ITFS stations 
authorized on a secondary basis should not receive PSA protection because secondary stations, usually 
STLs, have not traditionally been given protection relative to primary stations.
8
4. On January 10, 2005, the new rules applicable to the 2.5 GHz band became effective and the 
name of the educational service in the band was changed from ITFS to EBS.
9
  The new rules were 
designed to facilitate the development and deployment of advanced wireless services, including fixed and 
                                                          
1
Petition for Waiver of Section 27.1206 of the Commission’s Rules, South Carolina Educational Television 
Commission (filed Aug. 6, 2010) (Waiver Request) at 2.
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
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, Instructional Television Fixed Service & Cable Television Relay 
Service, Gen. Docket No. 90-54, Order on Reconsideration, 6 FCC Rcd 6764, 6766-6767 ¶¶ 9-10 (1991).  PSA radii 
were circles drawn from the main transmitter.  
5
Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, MM 
Docket No. 93-94, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 2907, 2917 ¶ 59 (1995).
6
Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed 
Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, Report and Order, MM Docket No. 97-217, 13 
FCC Rcd 19112, 19173 ¶ 114 (1998).
7
Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed 
Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, Order on Reconsideration, MM Docket No. 97-
217, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12773-12776 ¶¶ 20-22 (1999).
8
Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed 
Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 97-217, 15 FCC Rcd 14566, 14572 ¶ 24 (2000) (“Two-
Way Second Reconsideration Order”).
9
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, 14169 ¶ 
6 (2004) (“BRS/EBS R&O”).  See also 69 FR 72020.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-411
3
mobile wireless broadband.
10
  As part of this new design, the Commission converted licenses that had 
been granted PSAs in the ITFS to Geographic Service Areas (“GSAs”) in the newly created EBS.
11
  This 
change reduced the administrative burden on EBS licensees because they would no longer be required to 
seek prior Commission approval for certain actions, such as the location of transmitters.
12
  Secondary 
STLs were not granted GSAs, however, because under ITFS STLs were licensed on a point-to-point 
secondary basis and not on a PSA basis. Thus, when the Commission converted PSAs to GSAs, STLs 
remained licensed on a point-to-point secondary basis and were not granted GSAs.  The Commission also 
developed a methodology to determine GSA boundaries when the PSAs of adjacent co-channel licensees 
overlap; these overlapping PSAs occurred, in part, when the Commission enlarged the PSAs from 15-
mile circles to 35-mile circles.
13
  Specifically, the Commission decided that the GSA boundaries of 
adjacent market co-channel licensees with overlapping PSAs would be determined by “splitting-the-
football,” in which the adjacent market co-channel licensees drew a chord between the intersection points 
of their overlapping 35-mile PSAs.
14
  This methodology was codified in Section 27.1206 of the 
Commission’s Rules.
15
5. On August 6, 2010, SCETV filed the instant waiver request.  SCETV asks the Bureau for a 
“limited” waiver of Section 27.1206 of the Commission’s Rules to grant the Stations a “customized” 
GSA containing only those areas that are outside the GSAs of all neighboring co-channel EBS stations, 
i.e., the GSAs of the Stations would not be able to encroach upon the GSAs of neighboring co-channel
licensees.
16
In other words, SCETV agreed that it would not ”split-the-football” when that the GSAs of 
the Stations overlapped with the GSAs of adjacent co-channel licensees, but would instead reduce the size 
of the GSAs of the respective Stations.
6. When SCETV filed it waiver request, it reported that it was in the process of transitioning its 
EBS facilities from a traditional one-way video model (which it provided under ITFS) to a model that 
relies on wireless broadband deployments in conjunction with its wireless operators/lessees Clearwire 
Spectrum Holdings III and Digital Bridge Spectrum Corporation.
17
  SCETV argued that unless the 
Stations are able to obtain GSAs there will be significant coverage gaps in SCETV’s and the operators’s
networks.
18
  
7. On September 14, 2010, the Broadband Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
(“Division”) released a Public Notice seeking comment on SCETV’s Waiver Request.
19
  Comments were 
due on or before September 29, 2010 and Reply Comments were due on or before October 12, 2010.
20
  
                                                          
10
BRS/EBS R&O, 19 FCC Rcd at 14190-14191 ¶ 55.
11
Id., 19 FCC Rcd at 14189-14190 ¶ 54.  
12
Id., 19 FCC Rcd at 14190 ¶ 54.
13
Id., 19 FCC Rcd at 14192 ¶ 60.
14
Id., 19 FCC Rcd 14192 ¶¶ 59-60.
15
47 C.F.R. § 27.1206(a)(1).
16
Waiver Request at 1-2.
17
Id. at 3.
18
Id.
19
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Request by South Carolina Educational Television 
Commission for Waiver to Grant Geographic Service Areas to Educational Broadband Service Stations Licensed as 
Secondary Studio-to-Transmitter Links, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 13101 (WTB BD 2010).
20
Id. at 13101.  We grant SCETV’s Motion For Leave to File Further Reply Comments (filed on Oct. 21, 2010) in 
response to the Reply Comments submitted by the Instructional Telecommunications Foundation (ITF), which were 
filed with only one day remaining in the pleading cycle, thus not giving SCETV adequate time to reply to ITF’s 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-411
4
Rowan-Carbarrus Community College and Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College support 
the waiver request so long as the GSAs of their respective stations are not reduced as a result of a grant of 
the waiver request.
21
  Three commenters object to the waiver request. The North Carolina Association of 
Community College Presidents (NCACCP) objects to SCETV’s waiver request because the proposed 
custom GSA for one of the stations, Station WHQ477, “falls entirely within the State of North Carolina, 
and would therefore not provide any educational benefit to the citizens of North Carolina or South 
Carolina.”
22
  The Instructional Telecommunications Foundation, Inc. (“ITF”) objects to the waiver 
request in light of the Commission’s open proceeding seeking comment on how to license the remaining 
unassigned EBS spectrum.
23
  ITF argues that the Bureau should deny the waiver request except in cases 
where the affected co-channel EBS licensee has given its consent and asks that the Commission complete 
the pending rulemaking on how to license the remaining available and unassigned EBS spectrum.
24
  
Christian College of Georgia, Inc. (“Christian College”) objects to the waiver request on both procedural 
and substantive grounds.
25
  Christian College argues that although SCETV asks for a waiver of Section 
27.1206 of the Commission’s Rules, it is really seeking an out-of-time reconsideration of the 
Commission’s decision in the Two-Way Second Reconsideration Order.
26
  Christian College further 
argues that SCETV is seeking a waiver not of Section 27.1206 of the Commission’s Rules, but of the 
1995 filing freeze.
27
  Finally, the Catholic Television Network (“CTN”) does not oppose the waiver 
request but urges the Commission to adopt rules on how to license the remaining EBS spectrum rather 
than granting GSAs on an ad hoc basis.
28
III. DISCUSSION
8. As discussed in detail below, SCETV seeks a “limited” waiver of Section 27.1206 of the 
Commission’s Rules and argues that a grant of the waiver would further the underlying purpose of 
Section 27.1206 to ensure that stations licensed as STLs remained subordinate to stations licensed on a 
primary basis.
29
  As a preliminary matter, however, we agree with Christian College that SCETV should 
have asked for a waiver of the Commission’s decision in the Two-Way Second Reconsideration Order,
where the Commission held that stations licensed as STLs would not be granted PSAs.
30
  The underlying 
purpose of that decision was to ensure that the STLs, originally licensed on a secondary basis, remained 
                                                          
(...continued from previous page)
reply comments during the pleading cycle.  We further grant Christian College of Georgia, Inc.’s request to file late-
filed comments.  See Christian College of Georgia, Inc. Comments (filed Aug. 30, 2011) (“Christian College 
Comments”) at 8.  We also grant SCETV’s Motion for Leave to File Further Reply Comments (filed Sep. 9, 2011) 
to respond to the comments filed by Christian College.
21
Rowan-Cabarrus Community College Comments (filed Oct. 10, 2010) (“Rowan-Cabarrus Comments”) at 1.  
Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College (filed Oct. 10, 2010) (“Asheville-Buncombe Comments”) at 1.
22
North Carolina Association of Community College Presidents Comments (filed Sep. 14, 2010) (“NCACCP 
Comments”) at 1.
23
Reply Comments of Instructional Telecommunications Foundation, Inc. (filed Oct. 12, 2010) (“ITF Comments”) 
at 2.
24
Id.
25
Christian College Comments at 2.
26
Id. at 3-4, 7.
27
Id. at 7.
28
Reply Comments of the Catholic Television Network (filed Oct. 12, 2010) at 1-2.
29
Waiver Request at 3-4.
30
Two-Way Second Reconsideration Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 14572 ¶ 24.  See Christian College Comments at 4.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-411
5
subordinate to neighboring EBS stations that were licensed on a primary basis.
31
  A station licensed on a 
secondary basis must not interfere with other stations licensed on a primary basis and it must accept 
interference from other stations licensed on a primary basis.
32
  In the BRS/EBS Report and Order, the 
Commission converted stations that had been licensed on a PSA basis to stations licensed on a GSA 
basis.
33
  The underlying purpose that decision was to eliminate inefficient, burdensome site-by-site 
licensing rules associated with licensing by PSA.
34
  
9. We disagree with Christian College that SCETV’s Waiver Request is an untimely-filed 
petition for reconsideration of the Commission’s decision in the Two-Way Second Reconsideration Order
not to grant PSAs to stations licensed as STLs.
35
  Christian College mistakenly argues that in the FAU 
Order on Further Reconsideration, Florida Atlantic University petitioned for reconsideration of the 
Commission’s decision in the Two-Way Second Reconsideration Order.
36
  It did not. Florida Atlantic 
University sought reconsideration of the prior decision in which the Division denied FAU’s request for 
reconsideration of staff actions correcting the Universal Licensing System database to reflect that FAU’s 
four stations were, in fact, secondary STLs.
37
  In the FAU Order on Further Reconsideration, the Bureau 
granted FAU a waiver of the Commission’s decision in the Two-Way Second Reconsideration Order, and 
granted PSAs to four FAU stations licensed as STLs.
38
  We also disagree with Christian College’s 
allegation that SCETV is seeking a waiver of the filing freeze first adopted by the Commission in 1995.
39
  
The 1995 filing freeze is not applicable to this case.  The last window for filing applications for new ITFS 
stations was in 1995.
40
  In April 2003, as part of the BRS/EBS proceeding, the Commission extended the 
1995 filing freeze.
41
  Several months later, however, in August 2003, the Commission modified the filing 
freeze, in part, by permitting the filing of major modifications of EBS licenses.
42
  Because the Stations are 
currently licensed, a grant of a GSA would be a major modification and would not violate the filing freeze 
as modified by the Commission in August 2003.   
10. Nevertheless, we conclude that SCETV has not shown that a waiver is warranted in this case.  
To be granted a waiver under the Commission’s Rules, SCETV must show that (1) the underlying 
purpose of the rule(s) would not be served or would be frustrated by application to the instant case, and 
                                                          
31
Two-Way Second Reconsideration Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 14572 ¶ 24.
32
See Charles T. Crawford, et al., Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 5844, 5846 ¶ 5 (WTB PS&PWD 2006).
33
BRS/EBS R&O, 19 FCC Rcd at 14190-14191 ¶ 55.
34
BRS/EBS R&O, 19 FCC Rcd at 14189-14190 ¶ 54.
35
Christian College Comments at 7.
36
Id. at 4, citing Florida Atlantic University, Order on Further Reconsideration, 23 FCC Rcd 6914 (WTB 2008) 
(“FAU Order on Further Reconsideration”).
37
FAU Order on Further Reconsideration, 23 FCC Rcd at 6914 ¶ 1.
38
Id., 23 FCC Rcd at 6918 ¶ 11.
39
Christian College Comments at 6-7.
40
See Notice of Instructional Television Fixed Service Filing Window From October 16, 1995, through October 20, 
1995, Public Notice, Report No. 23565A (rel. Aug. 4, 1995).
41
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, 
6813, 6825 ¶¶ 226, 260 (2003).
42
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 Bands.  
Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 03-66, 18 FCC Rcd 16848, 16849 ¶ 1 (2003).
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-411
6
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.
43
In this case, SCETV 
argues that granting the Stations 12 customized GSAs furthers the Commission’s decision that STLs 
remain subordinate to EBS stations licensed on a primary basis.
44
  According to SCETV, the 12 
customized GSAs would be subordinate to neighboring co-channel primary stations because GSAs of the 
Stations would not encroach upon the GSAs of the primary co-channel EBS stations.
45
SCETV argues 
that granting 12 “customized” GSAs is in the public interest because it would permit SCETV to eliminate 
coverage gaps in its network of EBS stations and thus deliver wireless broadband and educational 
services to areas that would otherwise be left without service.
46
  Finally SCETV argues that granting it a 
waiver in this instance would be consistent with the Bureau’s decision in the FAU Order on Further 
Reconsideration, in which the Bureau granted GSAs to four stations originally licensed as STLs.
47
  
11. We find, however, that SCETV has not shown how granting customized GSAs to the 12 
Stations would ensure that they remain “subordinate” to neighboring EBS stations and thus further the 
Commission’s decision in the Two-Way Second Reconsideration Order.  According to SCETV, the 12 
Stations would remain “subordinate” to their neighboring EBS licensees because the Stations would be 
granted GSAs only for those areas that are outside the GSAs of the neighboring incumbent EBS 
stations.
48
  SCETV is referencing the methodology adopted by the Commission in the BRS/EBS Report 
and Order to determine the boundaries of the GSAs when they were converted from PSAs, which was 
codified in Section 27.1206 of the Commission’s Rules.
49
  When the PSAs of adjacent co-channel 
licensees overlapped, Section 27.1206 requires that the GSA boundaries of adjacent co-channel licensees 
be determined by “splitting-the-football,” in which the adjacent co-channel licensees draw a chord 
between the intersection points of their overlapping 35-mile PSAs.
50
Under SCETV’s Waiver Request, 
SCETV would not “split the football” but would reduce the GSAs of the Stations so they would not
overlap the GSAs of neighboring co-channel licensees.  Thus, the GSA of the Station would be 
“customized” to fit within the unlicensed area.  The result would be GSAs that are highly truncated and 
unusual in size.  We reject, however, SCETV’s characterization of the Commission’s use of 
“subordinate” in the Two-Way Reconsideration Order.  When the Commission used the term 
“subordinate” in the Two-Way Second Reconsideration Order it was not referring to the size of a GSA.  It 
meant “secondary,” as in stations licensed as STLs are licensed on a secondary basis and therefore they 
are “subordinate” to stations licensed on a primary basis.
51
  Stations that are licensed on a secondary basis 
must accept interference from primary stations and must not cause interference to primary stations.
52
  
SCETV does not indicate that it is willing to operate the Stations on a secondary basis.  Nor has it 
provided any evidence that neighboring EBS licensees have consented to providing interference 
protection to SCETV’s secondary stations consistent with the technical rules applicable to EBS.  Thus, we 
                                                          
43
47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3).  
44
Waiver Request at 3-4.
45
Id. at 5.
46
Id. at 5.
47
Id. at 4.
48
Id.
49
BRS/EBS R&O, 19 FCC Rcd at 14192 ¶ 60.
50
See 47 C.F.R. § 27.1206(a)(1).
51
See Two-Way Second Reconsideration Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 14572 ¶¶ 23-24.
52
See Charles T. Crawford, et al., supra, n.32.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-411
7
find that SCETV has not shown how granting its waiver request furthers the Commission’s decision in 
the Two-Way Second Reconsideration Order.  
12. We also find that SCETV has not shown how granting it 12 customized GSAs is in the public 
interest.  Although SCETV claims that it can eliminate coverage gaps and thus deliver wireless broadband 
and educational services to areas that would otherwise be left without service, it provides no evidence of 
schools or other educational institutions that would be deprived of wireless broadband service without 
grant of SCETV’s waiver request.  Nor does SCETV address the consequences to neighboring EBS 
stations that were licensed on a primary basis.  According to the exhibit filed by SCETV with its petition, 
there are sixteen licensees that would be affected by grant of this waiver request.
53
  Of these sixteen 
licensees, only two consented, Rowan-Carbarrus Community College and Asheville-Buncombe Technical 
Community College, and they consented only if their respected GSAs would not be reduced as a result of 
granting GSAs to the Stations.
54
  Neither Rowan-Carbarrus Community College nor Asheville-Buncombe 
Technical Community College consented to the application of the Commission’s technical rules affecting 
co-channel and adjacent channel licensees with regard to the proposed customized GSAs.
55
  
13. Moreover, we agree with ITF that granting SCETV 12 “customized” GSAs during the 
pendency of the BRS/EBS Second FNPRM, an open proceeding to determine how to license unassigned 
and available EBS spectrum, is contrary to the public interest.  On March 20, 2008, the Commission 
released the BRS/EBS Second FNPRM in which the Commission sought comment on designing a 
licensing scheme for EBS spectrum.
56
  This proceeding has been fully briefed, and many EBS eligible 
entities are waiting for the opportunity to apply for EBS licenses.  Once this proceeding has been 
terminated, SCETV will have an opportunity to apply for additional spectrum to fill in any coverage gaps 
it may have, while other EBS eligible entities will have the opportunity to apply for new licenses, which 
they have not been able to do for more than 15 years.  We further agree with ITF that granting the 
Stations customized GSAs would encourage other licensees across the nation to seek waivers to convert 
their STLs to GSAs to the detriment of those EBS eligible entities that have been precluded from 
applying for EBS licenses since 1995.
57
14. Finally, we find, contrary to SCETV’s position, that grant of a waiver in this case would not 
be consistent with the Bureau decision in the FAU Order on Further Reconsideration.
58
  In the FAU 
                                                          
53
The following licensees would be affected by SCETV’s Waiver Request:  Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public 
Broadcasting (WHR535); University of North Carolina General Administration (WHR598); Trident Technical 
College (WHR932); Evans County School System (WLX698); Wrens Middle School (WLX862); University of 
North Carolina General Administration (WND363); Moore County Schools (WND399); Brunswick Community 
College (WND462); Stanly Community College (WND598); Central Piedmont Community College (WND599); 
University of North Carolina Center for Public Television (WND602); University of North Carolina Center for 
Public Television (WND605); Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network (WND612); Rowan-
Cabarrus Community College (WND613); Ashville-Buncombe Technical Community College (WND616); and 
Christian College of Georgia (WND620).  Waiver Request at Attachment A.
54
Rowan Cabarrus Community College (WND613) and Ashville-Buncombe Technical Community College 
(WND616) would affect the GSA for Station WHQ447.  
55
See Rowan-Cabarrus Comments, Asheville-Buncombe Comments.
56
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 Order on Reconsideration and Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order and Fourth Memorandum Opinion and 
Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling, WT Docket No. 03-66, 23 FCC 
Rcd 5992, 6060-6068 ¶¶ 180-204 (2004).
57
See ITF Comments at 3.
58
See Waiver Request 4-5.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-411
8
Order on Further Reconsideration, the Bureau granted FAU’s waiver request and granted GSAs to four 
stations that had been licensed as STLs.
59
  In that case, FAU had obtained consents from all of the 
affected licensees, who consented so long as their respective GSAs were not reduced.
60
  Here, only two of 
the SCETV’s 16 affected neighbors have consented to SCETV’s waiver request.
61
  In the FAU Order on 
Reconsideration, FAU’s neighbors also consented to the application of the normal FCC rules affecting 
neighboring co-channel and adjacent-channel stations to the operation of “’these neighboring GSA 
facilities including, as applicable, those contained in Section 27.53, 27.55, and 27.1221.”
62
  Here, not one 
of SCETV’s neighbors consented to the application of the normal licensing rules governing the operation 
of co-channel and adjacent channel stations. Finally, FAU filed its petition for reconsideration on August 
10, 2007, seven months before the Commission released the BRS/EBS Second FNPRM, in which it sought 
comment on how to license unassigned and available EBS spectrum.
63
  Here, SCETV requested a waiver 
during the pendency of the proceeding.
64
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES
15. SCETV has failed to show that a grant of its waiver request would further the Commission’s 
decision in the Two-Way Second Reconsideration Order that stations licensed as STLs remain 
subordinate to licensed on a primary basis.  SCETV has also failed to show that a grant of its waiver 
request is in the public interest.
16. For the reasons stated above, 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 of the Commission’s 
Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.925 that the Petition for Waiver of Section 27.1206 of the Commission’s Rules filed 
by South Carolina Educational Television Commission on August 6, 2010 IS DENIED.
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.45 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.45, that the 
Motions For Leave to File Further Reply Comments filed by South Carolina Educational Television 
Commission filed on October 21, 2010 and September 9, 2011, and the request to submit late-filed 
comments made by Christian College of Georgia, Inc. on August 30, 2011 ARE GRANTED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
John J. Schauble
Deputy Chief, Broadband Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
                                                          
59
FAU Order on Further Reconsideration, 23 FCC Rcd at 6918 ¶ 12.
60
Id., 23 FCC Rcd at 6917-6918 ¶ 9. 
61
See Rowan-Cabarrus Comments, Asheville-Buncombe Comments.
62
FAU Order on Further Reconsideration, 23 FCC Rcd at 6918 ¶ 10.
63
Id., 23 FCC Rcd at 6914 ¶ 1.
64
See Waiver Request.