Federal Communications Commission DA 15-1247
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In re Matter of 
RF DEVELOPMENT, LLC 
Notification of Demonstration of Substantial 
Service for Local Multipoint Distribution Service 
Station WPOH612
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. 0004994058
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION 
Adopted:  November 3, 2015          Released:  November 4, 2015
By the Deputy Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION    
1. In this Order on Reconsideration, we dismiss a petition for reconsideration filed by RF 
Development, LLC (“RF”)
1
of a Memorandum Opinion and Order that found that RF failed to 
demonstrate the provision of substantial service for Local Multipoint Distribution Service (“LMDS”) 
Station WPOH612, Salisbury, Maryland.
2
  For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the Petition in 
part and deny it in part.       
II. BACKGROUND      
2. LMDS licensees are regulated under Part 101 of the Commission’s rules, which generally 
governs terrestrial microwave operations, and may provide any service consistent with the Commission’s 
rules and the licensee’s regulatory status,
3
subject to a ten-year term from the initial license grant date.
4
  
At the end of the ten-year period, licensees are required to submit an acceptable showing to the 
Commission demonstrating that they are providing “substantial service” in each licensed area.
5
  Failure by 
any licensee to meet this requirement will result in forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be 
ineligible to regain it.
6
                                                          
1
Petition for Reconsideration, RF Development, LLC (filed Apr. 22, 2015) (“Petition”).
2
RF Development, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 2865 (WTB BD 2015) (“MO&O”). 
3
See 47 C.F.R. § 101.1013(b).  
4
See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Redesignate the 27.5 GHz
Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies For Local
Multipoint Distribution Service and For Fixed Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92-297, Second Report and Order, 
Order on Reconsideration and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 12545, 12657 ¶ 259 (1997) 
(Second LMDS Report and Order).  Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 101.67, LMDS licenses are issued for a period not to 
exceed ten years, subject to renewal upon demonstration of substantial service.         
5
See 47 C.F.R. § 101.1011(a); see also Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12658 ¶¶ 261-262.  
6
See 47 C.F.R. § 101.1011(a).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-1247
2
3. The Commission has defined substantial service as “service which is sound, favorable, 
and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal.”
7
  The 
Commission elaborated on this standard in the form of examples of what might constitute substantial 
service for LMDS licensees by providing safe harbors.
8
  Specifically, the Commission explained that “for 
an LMDS licensee that chooses to offer point-to-multipoint services, a demonstration of coverage to 20 
percent of the population of its licensed service area at the 10-year mark would constitute substantial 
service.  In the alternative, an LMDS licensee that chooses to offer fixed, point-to-point services, the 
construction of four permanent links per one million people in its licensed service area at the 10-year 
renewal mark would constitute substantial service.”
9
  The Commission further noted that it may consider 
such factors as whether the licensee is offering a specialized or technologically sophisticated service that 
does not require a high level of coverage to be of benefit to customers, and whether the licensee’s 
operations serve niche markets or focus on serving populations outside of areas served by other 
licensees.
10
  The substantial service requirement can be met in other ways, and the Commission explained 
that it will review licensees’ showings on a case-by-case basis.
11
    
4. RF won the license for Station WPOH612 in Auction No. 17, and the license was granted 
on July 24, 1998.
12
  RF was originally required to demonstrate substantial service by July 24, 2008, or 10 
years after the initial license grant date.
13
5. On December 16, 2011, RF filed an application seeking to demonstrate that LMDS 
Station WPOH612 is providing “substantial service” within its licensed area.
14
  RF contended therein that 
it exceeds the 20 percent signal coverage “safe harbor” requirements established by the Commission for 
LMDS licensees.
15
  In calculating the population within its service area, RF included “seasonal visitors” 
within the area where it was providing service.
16
  RF stated that “[t]he summertime population surges 
occurring within the Ocean City coverage area exceeds the total population of the entire BTA.”
17
  
According to RF’s calculations, which are based on information in an Ocean City Planning and Zoning
Commission document, “[t]he average annual weekend population for the area is calculated to be 
154,933,” and RF claims that its constructed facility would serve 45 percent of the population within the 
                                                          
7
Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12660 ¶ 269.  
8
Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12660 ¶¶ 269-270.  
9
Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12660 ¶ 270 (internal citations omitted).    
10
Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12660 ¶ 270 (internal citations omitted).
11
Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12660-12661 ¶ 270.   
12
See File No. 0000000096 (granted July 24, 1998).
13
See Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12657 ¶ 259.  On May 7, 2008, RF filed an application for 
an extension of time to demonstrate substantial service for LMDS Station WPOH612.  File No. 0003430505 (filed 
May 7, 2008); see File No. 0003430505 (granting RF an extension of time to demonstrate substantial service for 
LMDS Station WPOH612 until June 1, 2012); see also Applications filed by Licensees in the Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service (LMDS) Seeking Waivers of Section 101.1011 of the Commission’s Rules and Extensions of 
Time to Construct and Demonstrate Substantial Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 5894 
(WTB 2008).    
14
See File No. 0004994058 (filed Dec. 16, 2011) (“Construction Notification”), Substantial Service Demonstration 
for WPOH612 (“Substantial Service Showing”). 
15
Substantial Service Showing at 1.  
16
Substantial Service Showing at 2.
17
Substantial Service Showing at 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-1247
3
BTA when seasonal visitors are included.
18
6. On August 3, 2012, the Bureau’s Broadband Division (“Division”) returned the 
Construction Notification to provide RF with the opportunity to amend the Construction Notification to 
include additional information.
19
  The Division directed RF to provide “an attachment that explains how 
your communications system and the service you provide with it benefit the summer population of the 
area in and around Ocean City, Maryland.  On October 1, 2012, RF amended the Construction 
Notification.
20
  RF explains the service benefits to the Ocean City market area.
21
  According to RF, it 
installed a communications system which is planned to provide service primarily to
carrier companies seeking alternative connectivity for transport within the Ocean 
City market area.  The communications system envisioned for the market will include 
connectivity for public and provide networks seeking transport within the market 
area.  The summer population, along with businesses serving the areas in and around 
Ocean city, Maryland will be the beneficiaries of increased access and alternative 
carrier offerings.  RF Development, LLC installed network equipment manufactured 
by Hughes Network Systems which is designed to provide Ethernet and private line 
access and other “last-mile” data transmission solutions.
22
       
7. On April 23, 2014, the Division notified RF that the Division’s analysis shows that RF 
fails to meet the 20 percent coverage safe harbor for point-to-multipoint operation for Station 
WPOH612.
23
  The Division rejected the contention that the Ocean City market has a large summer 
population of tourists that should be considered for purposes of meeting the safe harbor because the 
Commission only considers full-time residents in counting population within a service area.
24
  The 
Division noted, however, that compliance with a safe harbor is not the only means by which an applicant 
can demonstrate substantial service and that, with additional information, it may be able to accept the 
substantial service showing on a case-by-case basis.
25
  RF was encouraged to provide any additional 
information that may be helpful in supporting the substantial service showing.
26
8. On May 28, 2014, RF amended the Construction Notification.
27
  First, RF contends the 
Division erred in concluding that the Commission only considers full-time residents in counting 
population within a service area for purposes of meeting the safe harbor.
28
  Second, RF contends it has 
                                                          
18
Substantial Service Showing at 2.
19
Notice of Return, Ref. No. 5420398 (Aug. 3, 2012) (First Return Letter).
20
Construction Notification (amended Oct. 1, 2012).  
21
Construction Notification, Amended Substantial Service Showing at 2.  
22
Amended Substantial Service Showing at 2.
23
E-mail from John. J. Schauble, Deputy Division Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, FCC, to Charles E. Walters, Managing Director, RF Development, LLC (Apr. 23, 2012) (“April 2012 
Email”).  
24
See id. 
25
See id.  Although the Bureau noted RF’s argument that Ocean City is a summer recreation destination, the Bureau 
explained that the description of services provided was too generic to conclude that such services were targeted 
towards the summer population of Ocean City or a niche market.  See id.  The Bureau stated that it might be able to 
make such a finding with additional information.  Id.           
26
See id. 
27
Construction Notification (amended May 28, 2014), Second Amended Substantial Service Showing at 2.
28
Second Amended Substantial Service Showing at 3.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-1247
4
demonstrated substantial service on a case-by-case basis because it operates in a niche market as well as 
serves populations outside areas served by other licensees.
29
  RF argues that Ocean City, Maryland is a
“niche” or “specialized business market”
30
because the annual influx of vacationing populations from the 
Washington DC, Philadelphia and New York regions has created a distinct and specialized business 
market area based on recreational commerce.
31
  RF believes it serves populations outside areas served by 
other licensees because Ocean City’s summertime population “far exceeds the residential population of 
the entire BTA” and, because such vacationing populations are from the Washington DC, Philadelphia 
and New York regions, the “population, when vacationing, is clearly not served by the licensee in their 
primary residential area.”
32
9. On July 31, 2014, the Division notified RF that the additional information provided in the 
Second Amended Substantial Service Showing was still insufficient to conclude that RF Development has 
demonstrated substantial service.
33
  
10. On August 20, 2014, RF informed the Division for the first time that it had also 
constructed a point-to-point link within the service area of Station WPOH612.
34
  In response, the Division 
asked for the following information:  (1) the date the link was constructed; (2) the coordinates for both 
ends of the link; (3) bandwidth of the link; and (4) a detailed explanation of how the link is being used.
35
  
In addition, the Division asked RF to identify the customer (if the link is being used by a customer) or to 
explain in detail for what purpose RF is using the link (if it was using the link for its own internal 
purposes).
36
       
11. On September 19, 2014, RF amended the Construction Notification to state that it also 
has met the Commission’s safe harbor for the provision of substantial service for fixed, point-to-point 
services (i.e., the construction of four permanent links per one million people in its licensed service area) 
because, during May of 2008, it constructed one permanent link for LMDS Station WPOH612 to provide 
point-to-point backhaul service in BTA398.
37
  RF contended that it established the link primarily for its 
own purposes.
38
    
12. On November 19, 2014, the Division asked RF to provide a detailed explanation of how 
RF is currently using the link and emphasized that the explanation should include the nature of the traffic 
                                                          
29
Second Amended Substantial Service Showing at 3.  
30
Second Amended Substantial Service Showing at 4 (referencing Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus, 
Second Edition definition of “niche” as “a specialized business market”).   
31
Second Amended Substantial Service Showing at 4.
32
Second Amended Substantial Service Showing at 4.
33
E-mail from John. J. Schauble, Deputy Division Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, FCC, to Charles E. Walters, Managing Director, RF Development, LLC (July 31, 2014).  
34
E-mail from Charles E. Walters, Managing Director, RF Development, LLC, to John. J. Schauble, Deputy 
Division Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Aug. 20, 2014).  
35
Id.   
36
Id.   
37
Construction Notification, Third Amended Substantial Service Showing (filed Sep. 19, 2014) at 3.  RF notes that 
the 2010 Census data for the Salisbury BTA 398 reports the population of the five Maryland counties of Wicomico, 
Caroline, Worchester, Somerset and Dorchester comprising the BTA to be 242,341.  Id. at 4.    
38
Third Amended Substantial Service Showing at 4.  RF also therein provided the date the link was constructed; the 
coordinates for both ends of the link; and the bandwidth of the link.  See id.    
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-1247
5
being carried over the link.
39
  The Division noted that we had specifically asked RF to explain in detail for 
what purpose it is using the link if it is using the link for its own internal purposes.
40
  The Division found 
RF’s response stating that the link is primarily being used for its own purposes to be insufficient because 
the response does not explain the nature of that use.
41
  
13. In response, RF amended the Application on January 6. 2015.
42
  RF clarified its statement 
that the link is primarily used for its own purposes.
43
  RF explains that this statement was not meant to 
suggest that the link was being used for its own corporate communications needs but, rather, to 
underscore that the link was being used to pursue commercial business opportunities for the company.
44
More specifically, RF notes that “[t]he link was established for the purpose of demonstrating to 
prospective business partners, carriers and site operators the ability of RF . . . to provide high speed 
wireless connectivity to the proposed tower site.
45
  In addition, RF provides an explanation of the nature 
of the link traffic.
46
  RF is currently transmitting telemetry and control information over the point-to-point 
link, which is used to monitor the status of the link, as well as maintaining the link in order to 
demonstrate high speed connectivity to the site.
47
14. On April 1, 2015, the Division denied RF’s demonstration of substantial service for 
Station WPOH612.
48
  First, the Division found that RF failed to demonstrate that it meets the safe harbor 
for point-to-multipoint services.
49
  The Commission has explained that “for an LMDS licensee that 
chooses to offer point-to-multipoint services, a demonstration of coverage to 20 percent of the population 
of its licensed service area at the 10-year mark would constitute substantial service.”
50
  Rather than base 
its population served estimates on the U.S. Census, RF asked the Division to consider tourists and 
“weekend populations” in making its determination.
51
  The Division declined to adopt an amorphous 
definition of population that would vary from weekend to weekend, allow licensees to count residents of 
the United States redundantly in multiple areas, and arguably include foreign tourists as well.
52
  Because 
RF failed to demonstrate that it provides coverage to 20 percent of the population of the licensed service 
area, the Division found that it failed to meet the safe harbor for construction of point-to-multipoint 
                                                          
39
Notice of Return, Ref. No. 5900787 (Nov. 19, 2014) (Second Return Letter) at 1. 
40
Second Return Letter at 1.  
41
Second Return Letter at 1.  
42
Construction Notification (amended Jan. 6, 2015), Fourth Amended Substantial Service Showing.  
43
Fourth Amended Substantial Service Showing at 2.
44
Fourth Amended Substantial Service Showing at 2.  
45
Fourth Amended Substantial Service Showing at 2 (“The specific use of the link has been to demonstrate 
connectivity to the site in order to pursue commercial business opportunities available to RF Development, LLC and 
its potential business partners with carrier and tower site development customers, not for its own corporate 
communications purposes.”).   
46
Fourth Amended Substantial Service Showing at 3.
47
Fourth Amended Substantial Service Showing at 3.  
48
MO&O.
49
MO&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 2870-2871 ¶ 16.
50
Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12660 ¶ 270 (internal citations omitted).    
51
MO&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 2870 ¶ 16.
52
MO&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 2871 ¶ 16.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-1247
6
services for LMDS Station WPOH612.
53
15. In addition, the Division found that the point-to-point link RF constructed is not relevant 
to its substantial service showing because the link was not used to provide service.
54
  In 2011, the 
Commission affirmed the Bureau’s rejection of substantial service showings “where there is no actual 
service being provided to the public.”
55
  The Commission has noted that the underlying purpose of the 
substantial service requirement is “providing ‘a clear and expeditious accounting of spectrum use by 
licensees to ensure that service is indeed being provided to the public.’”
56
  In other services, both the 
Commission and the Bureau have held that there is no service when facilities were constructed and 
operating but there was no use of the facilities.
57
  The Division noted:
In this instance, the signals transmitted for testing or marketing purposes were not used as 
part of any communications system.  The constructed link was shown to potential 
customers or used as the basis for various consultations or discussions to provide 
prospective service, but there was no communications use of the data transmitted over the 
link.  There is no actual customer or RF employee who used the links as part of any 
communications service.
58
  
The Division therefore found that, in the absence of service being provided to the public, RF had failed to 
demonstrate substantial service by constructing one point-to-point link for Station WPOH612.
59
            
16. The Division noted that, although the substantial service requirement may be met in other 
ways and we review licensees’ showings on a case-by-case basis,
60
it found that RF has failed to 
                                                          
53
MO&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 2871 ¶ 16.
54
Although RF seems to suggest that the Division failed to evaluate its substantial service showing as a “hybrid” 
showing, a “hybrid” showing would have required RF actively be using the point-to-point link to provide a bona fide 
communications service.    
55
Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and 
Other Uses and to Provide Additional Flexibility to Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed Microwave 
Licensees, WT Docket No. 10-153, Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 11614, 11661 ¶ 114 (2011) (“Wireless Backhaul MO&O”); see also FiberTower 
Spectrum Holdings LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 6822, 6840-6841 ¶ 39 (2013).
56
Wireless Backhaul MO&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 11661 ¶ 114, citing Amendment of the Commission’s Rules 
Regarding the 37.0 – 38.6 GHz and 38.6 – 40 GHz Bands, Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 95-183, 12 FCC Rcd 18600, 18623 ¶ 42 (1997); Renewal of Licenses to Provide 
Microwave Service in the 38.6-40.0 GHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 4404, 4407 ¶ 11 
(WTB PSPWD 2002).
57
For example, in 2004, the Commission affirmed the cancellation of a license in the 2.5 GHz band for failure to 
provide service, and noted that “it was clearly unreasonable for San Diego MDS to believe that the periodic 
broadcasting of signals that nobody received constituted ‘service’ within the meaning of the rule.”  San Diego MDS 
Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 23120, 23124 ¶ 10 (2004).  The Bureau’s Mobility 
Division has also rejected substantial service showings where facilities are constructed and operating but there is no 
internal use or service to customers.  See Cornerstone SMR, Inc., Order, 27 FCC Rcd 5900 (WTB MD 2012); JSM 
Holding LLC, Letter, 27 FCC Rcd 5864 (WTB MD 2012).
58
MO&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 2871-2872 ¶ 17.
59
MO&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 2872 ¶ 17.  
60
Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12660-12661 ¶ 270.   
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-1247
7
demonstrate that it is providing substantial service.
61
  Specifically, the Division found that RF fails to 
demonstrate that it provides service to a niche market or to populations outside of areas served by other 
licensees.
62
  The Division found that RF has failed to demonstrate that Ocean City is not a market 
unserved by other carriers.
63
  The Division therefore found that none of these factors supports a 
conclusion that Station WPOH612 is providing substantial service.
64
17. RF filed a petition seeking reconsideration of the Division’s action on April 22, 2015. 
RF disagrees with the Division’s definition of population;
65
interpretation of substantial service; and the 
finding that RF’s fixed point-to-point link was not used for service.
66
  RF also contends that it had 
expectations that a “hybrid” approach would be considered in evaluation its substantial service showing 
and that the Commission would consider other options, such as an extension of time or disaggregation of 
service area.
67
RF asks the Division to reinstate the license for Station WPOH612 through one of the 
following four actions:  accepting its substantial service showing based upon arguments it previously 
made, find substantial service based on consideration of a “hybrid” approach taking into account both the 
point-to-multipoint system and the fixed link, accept RF’s offer to partition part of its service area so that 
it would serve more than twenty percent of the population in its remaining service area, or grant it an 18 
month extension of time to demonstrate substantial service for Station WPOH612.
68
III. DISCUSSION
18. We deny the Petition.  Reconsideration is appropriate only where the petitioner either 
demonstrates a material error or omission in the underlying order or raises additional facts not known or 
not existing until after the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters.
69
  A petition for 
reconsideration that simply reiterates arguments that were previously considered and rejected will be 
denied.
70
  We find that the Petition neither demonstrates material error or omission in the MO&O, nor 
                                                          
61
MO&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 2872 ¶ 18, citing Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12660 ¶ 270 (“In 
evaluating a substantial service showing, the Commission may consider such factors as whether the licensee is 
offering a specialized or technologically sophisticated service that does not require a high level of coverage to be of 
benefit to customers, and whether the licensee’s operations serve niche markets or focus on serving populations 
outside of areas served by other licensees.”) (internal citations omitted).
62
MO&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 2872 ¶ 18 (noting that the cases where the Bureau has accepted showings involving niche 
markets involve specialized customers such as a remote educational campus or public safety or a specialized 
service).
63
MO&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 2872 ¶ 18 (noting that, since RF plans to provide services to other carriers, it would be 
illogical for RF to be pursuing its business plan in an unserved market).  
64
MO&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 2872 ¶ 18.
65
RF raised various related arguments such as the Commission’s misunderstanding of the population count analysis, 
the explanation of the population count analysis, and the exclusion of service to a majority of the population.  
Petition at 7-9.  
66
Petition at 5-12. 
67
Petition at 10-11.
68
Petition at 12-13.
69
47 C.F.R. § 1.106; see 47 C.F. 1.106(d)(2)( a petition for reconsideration of a decision that sets forth formal 
findings of fact and conclusions of law shall also cite the findings and/or conclusions which petitioner believes to be 
erroneous, and shall state with particularity the respects in which he believes such findings and/or conclusions 
should be changed).
70
See WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 686 ¶ 2 (1964) (WWIZ) (“it is universally held that rehearing will not be granted 
merely for the purpose of again debating matters on which the tribunal has once deliberated and spoken”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-1247
8
raises any new facts unavailable to the petitioners at their last opportunity to presents such matter.  
Therefore, for the reasons explained below, we dismiss the Petition.
19. With respect to RF’s substantial service arguments that it made previously, we find that 
the Petition largely reargues matters that the Division previously considered and rejected in the MO&O.  
It is well established that “rehearing will not be granted merely for the purpose of debating matters on 
which the tribunal has once deliberated and spoken.”
71
   A review of the pleadings shows that RF’s 
arguments were thoroughly considered and rejected in the MO&O. While it is apparent that RF believes 
that the MO&O is incorrect, RF has not met the standards for reconsideration by demonstrating a material 
error or omission in the underlying order or raising additional facts not known or not existing until after 
the last opportunity it had to present such matters. Accordingly, we dismiss the Petition to the extent that 
it presents arguments previously considered and rejected.
20. We also reject RF’s request that the Division evaluate its substantial showing under a 
“hybrid” approach where, if a licensee fails to meet the safe harbor separately for point-to-multipoint 
services or fixed, point-to-point services, we would determine whether it could be credited for offering 
both point-to-multipoint services and fixed, point-to-point services in satisfying the requirement to 
provide substantial service.  Consideration under a “hybrid” approach is not appropriate in this case 
because the fixed, point-to-point link was not used to provide a bona fide communication service.
72
  
Therefore, any reference to a point-to-point that does not provide a bona fide communications service
could not affect the outcome of a “hybrid” showing.  Because RF failed to demonstrate that it met the safe 
harbor for point-to-multipoint services, it equally failed to demonstrate the provision of substantial service 
under a “hybrid” showing.
73
21. We also decline to consider at this time RF’s proposals that it be allowed to partition its 
license or seek an extension of time to demonstrate substantial service.  “Grant of a request to reinstate 
and extend the construction period for a license that has canceled automatically for failure to construct 
requires ‘an extraordinary showing of compelling circumstances.’”
74
  RF had the opportunity to request 
an extension as an alternative to its substantial service notification, but it did not do so.  We therefore 
conclude that extraordinary circumstances are not present to justify consideration of an extension request 
at this time.  Similarly, while we may have considered RF’s partitioning proposal prior to our action, we 
believe it is too late to consider such a proposal now.  RF elected to continue to pursue its substantial 
service showing—filing multiple amendments over a course of three years—without seeking other 
regulatory actions it now wishes to pursue after the license has automatically cancelled.    
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES
22. For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petition mostly presents arguments that 
were previously considered and rejected by the Division in the MO&O.  RF has not identified any error or 
omissions in the MO&O warranting reconsideration of the action taken by the Division in this matter.  
We therefore dismiss the Petition in part and deny it in part.  
23. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the 
                                                          
71
WWIZ, 37 FCC at 686 ¶ 2.
72
MO&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 2872 ¶ 17.
73
The Division also evaluated and rejected claims that RF provided substantial service by serving niche markets or 
focusing on serving populations outside of areas served by other licensees.  
74
County of Almance, North Carolina, Order, 13 FCC Rcd 23335, 23336 ¶ 4 (WTB PS&PWD 1998), quoting
County of Los Angeles, Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4500, 4501 (PRB 1989) (citing Associated Information Services, Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 3 FCC Rcd 5617, 5618–5619 (1988)).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-1247
9
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by RF Development, LLC 
on April 22, 2015 IS DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
24. 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
John J. Schauble
Deputy Chief, Broadband Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau