Federal Communications Commission DA 16-811 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
SAL Spectrum, LLC
Application to Participate in Auction 1002;
Request for Waiver of Eligibility Standard for 
Rural Service Provider Bidding Credit
Competitive Bidding Procedures for Broadcast 
Incentive Auction 1000, Including Auctions 1001 
and 1002 
Expanding the Economic and Innovation 
Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive 
Auctions
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AU Docket No. 14-252 
GN Docket No. 12-268 
ORDER
Adopted:  July 29, 2016 Released:  July 29, 2016
By the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order, we deny the petition for waiver filed by Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc. 
(ATN), and its wholly-owned subsidiary SAL Spectrum, LLC (SAL) (together Petitioners), seeking 
eligibility for a rural service provider bidding credit in Auction 1002 based on a count of only the 
domestic subscribers and excluding foreign subscribers of the applicant and its affiliates.1 For the reasons 
set forth below, we conclude that Section 1.2110(f)(4)(i)(A) of the Commission’s rules,2 which limits 
eligibility for the rural service provider bidding credit to providers with fewer than 250,000 subscribers, 
does not distinguish between domestic and foreign subscribers, and thus SAL is required to attribute to 
itself the subscribers of its foreign affiliates.  We further conclude that Petitioners have not demonstrated 
a sufficient basis for waiving that requirement.   
II. BACKGROUND 
2. On July 21, 2015, the Commission released the Part 1 Report and Order, which 
modernized and reformed the Commission’s Part 1 competitive bidding rules to reflect changes in the 
wireless industry over the last decade.3 The Commission modified the Part 1 rules in certain respects to 
provide greater opportunities for entities to compete for spectrum licenses at auctions.  To further this 
  
1 See Petition for Waiver, FCC Form 175 File No. 0007122225 (filed with WTB May 3, 2016) (Waiver Petition).  
Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc., has since notified us that it has changed its name to ATN International, Inc.    
2 47 CFR § 1.2110(f)(4) (eligibility standard for rural service provider bidding credit).
3 Updating Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules, Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration of the First Report and 
Order, Third Order on Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, Third Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 7493 
(2015) (Part 1 Report and Order).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-811 
2
objective, the Part 1 Report and Order established, among other things, a 15 percent bidding credit for 
eligible rural service providers.4  To be eligible for a rural service provider bidding credit, an applicant 
must be a service provider that:  (1) is in the business of providing commercial communications services 
and, together with its controlling interests, affiliates, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has 
fewer than 250,000 combined wireless, wireline, broadband, and cable subscribers; and (2) serves 
predominantly rural areas, defined as counties with a population density of 100 or fewer persons per 
square mile.5 The combined subscribers of the applicant, its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the 
affiliates of its controlling interests “shall be attributed to the applicant (or licensee) and considered on a 
cumulative basis and aggregated.”6  
3. On October 15, 2015, the Bureau released the Application Procedures Public Notice, 
which provided detailed information and instructions for potential applicants for the broadcast incentive 
auction.7 With respect to the forward auction (Auction 1002), the public notice cited the Commission’s 
new rule regarding eligibility for the rural service provider bidding credit and explained the disclosures 
required in the forward auction application (FCC Form 175).8 In particular, an applicant seeking a rural 
service provider bidding credit must disclose “the number of subscribers it has, along with the number of 
subscribers of its affiliates, controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests.”9  
4. On February 4, 2016, SAL submitted an application to participate in Auction 1002, which 
included a claim for a rural service provider bidding credit.10 To support its claim, SAL submitted 
subscriber numbers for itself and certain affiliates in its application, as well as an attachment asserting the 
basis for its eligibility for the bidding credit.11 In this initial filing, SAL provided the number of wireless, 
wireline, broadband, and cable subscribers for only those affiliates operating in the United States.  
Although SAL sought confidentiality as to that number,12 according to Petitioners’ subsequently filed 
Waiver Petition described below, for which they did not seek confidential treatment, those subscribers 
totaled “slightly more than 62,000.”13 The Bureau subsequently determined that SAL’s application was 
incomplete and identified specific application deficiencies in a letter sent to SAL.14  
  
4 Id. at 7530-31, para. 88.
5 47 CFR § 1.2110(f)(4)(i).
6 47 CFR § 1.2110(f)(4)(i)(C).
7 Application Procedures for Broadcast Incentive Auction Scheduled To Begin on March 29, 2016; Technical 
Formulas for Competitive Bidding, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 11034 (WTB 2015) (Application Procedures Public 
Notice).
8 Id. at 11074-75, paras. 123-24.
9 Id. at 11074, para. 124.
10 Waiver Petition at 3.
11 See id.
12 Petitioners’ confidentiality request was denied. See SAL Spectrum, LLC – Request for Confidential Treatment of 
Subscriber Information Provided in FCC Form 175, Letter Order, 31 FCC Rcd 3726 (WTB/ASAD 2016).  
Concurrently with the Waiver Petition, Petitioners filed an Application for Review of the denial, requesting that the 
Commission delay addressing the Application for Review until the Bureau decides the Waiver Petition.  See SAL 
Spectrum, LLC, Application To Participate in Auction 1002, File No. 0007122225, Application for Review at 4 
(filed May 3, 2016) (Application for Review).  In their Application for Review, Petitioners indicated that if their 
Waiver Petition were denied, they would withdraw their claim for a bidding credit and the Application for Review 
would become moot.  Id. at 4 n.12.  
13 Waiver Petition at 3.  
14 See Status of Applications To Participate in the Broadcast Television Spectrum Incentive Forward Auction 
(Auction 1002); Applications Deemed Incomplete Must Be Resubmitted by April 6, 2016, Public Notice, 31 FCC 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-811 
3
5. During the resubmission filing period afforded to Auction 1002 applicants to address 
deficiencies in their applications, SAL revised its FCC Form 175, and re-submitted it on April 6, 2016.15  
This time, SAL included with its application an attachment that provided a general range of the total 
number of subscribers for three foreign affiliates of SAL.16 In addition to its U.S. subscribers, the Waiver 
Petition later disclosed that SAL’s foreign affiliates in Guyana, Bermuda, and Aruba collectively serve an 
unspecified number of – but “more than 250,000” – wireline, wireless, broadband, and cable 
subscribers,17 and that the total number of SAL’s and its affiliates’ subscribers is “fewer than 500,000.”18
SAL argues in the attachment to its application that subscribers of foreign affiliates should not be counted 
in assessing eligibility for this bidding credit.19 SAL further states that it intends to seek clarification 
from the Commission on this issue prior to the start of the forward auction clock phase.20
6. On May 3, 2016, ATN and SAL filed a petition requesting, to the extent necessary, 
waiver of Section 1.2110(f)(4) of the Commission’s rules, to enable SAL to claim eligibility for a rural 
service provider bidding credit in Auction 1002.  Petitioners claim that the “plain meaning and context” 
of the rural service provider bidding credit eligibility requirement “suggest that only domestic 
subscribers” should be counted, but that the Part 1 Report and Order “creates some ambiguity” with 
respect to whether an applicant must also count its foreign subscribers.21 To the extent the rule does in 
fact require the inclusion of foreign subscribers, Petitioners seek a waiver so that SAL can claim 
eligibility for a rural service provider bidding credit in Auction 1002.22 Petitioners claim that due to 
ATN’s limited domestic operations and relatively small overall size, SAL “is precisely the type of auction 
applicant the Commission intended to benefit” with this bidding credit and that SAL’s ability to compete 
in Auction 1002 would be “significantly impeded” in the absence of a bidding credit.23 Moreover, 
Petitioners assert that SAL would be prejudiced by having to compete against other rural service 
providers that are eligible for a bidding credit.24 According to Petitioners, a waiver would further the 
public interest by encouraging greater deployment of wireless services in rural areas.25
7. On May 11, 2016, the Bureau released a public notice seeking comment on the Petition.26  
Ten parties filed largely identical letters in support of the Petition, expressing appreciation for ATN’s 
deployment of service to their rural or tribal areas and asserting that providing SAL with a bidding credit 
  
(...continued from previous page)
Rcd 1962, 1974 (WTB 2016).
15 Waiver Petition at 3.  
16 FCC Form 175 of SAL Spectrum, LLC, Auction 1002, “Eligibility for Rural Bidding Credit – Supplemental,” at 1 
(submitted Apr. 6, 2016) (Attach.).  We note that SAL did not disclose the names of the foreign affiliates or their 
subscribers in the application itself.    
17 Waiver Petition at 3.  
18 Id.
19 Attach. at 1.
20 Id.  
21 Waiver Petition at 4.
22 Id.  
23 Id. at 6, 8.  
24 Id. at 11.
25 Id. at 9.
26 See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc., and SAL Spectrum, 
LLC, Petition for Waiver To Claim Eligibility for a Rural Service Provider Bidding Credit in Auction 1002, Public 
Notice, DA 16-516 (WTB/ASAD May 11, 2016).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-811 
4
would further additional rural deployment.27 N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc., and Union Telephone 
Company filed joint comments arguing that the plain meaning of Section 1.2110(f)(4) does not permit an 
applicant to exclude foreign subscribers.28 They also oppose the grant of a waiver to SAL, claiming the 
public interest would not be served in light of ATN’s foreign affiliates and subscribers (which are 
increasing via new acquisitions of foreign subscribers)29 and overall financial strength, as demonstrated 
by its nearly $1.2 billion market capitalization and nearly $17 million profit in 2015, as well as SAL’s 
inability “to claim any difficulty accessing capital at favorable rates, or otherwise competing for spectrum 
in rural areas.”30
8. The only reply comments were filed by Petitioners.  In their reply, Petitioners argue that 
their financial size “is simply not a factor” in determining eligibility for the rural service provider bidding 
credit and that the rule’s failure to specifically include foreign subscribers creates ambiguity.31 In 
addition, Petitioners assert that their limited success in Auction 73 demonstrates their need for a bidding 
credit “to compete effectively” in Auction 1002.32 Petitioners further contend that the publicly released 
application information demonstrates that SAL is uniquely situated since no other applicant seeking the 
rural service provider bidding credit has “significant international operations” and that nine other 
applicants seeking the bidding credit have more domestic subscribers than Petitioners.33
III. DISCUSSION
9. We conclude that Section 1.2110(f)(4)(i)(A) of the Commission’s rules requires that SAL 
attribute to itself all the subscribers of its foreign affiliates.  The rule is clear that an applicant must 
attribute all subscribers of the applicant, its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its 
controlling interests; there are no exclusions from attribution depending upon where such subscribers are 
located.34  
  
27 See, e.g., Letter from Linda Calhoun, Town of Red River, NM, to Jon Wilkins, Chief, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (filed May 19, 2016); Letter from Phil Lyman, San Juan County, UT, 
Commission, to Jon Wilkins, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (filed May 19, 2016); Letter from 
Walter W. Haase, Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, to Jon Wilkins, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
FCC (filed May 19, 2016); Letter from Russell Begaye, Navajo Nation, to Jon Wilkins, Chief, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (filed May 19, 2016); Letter from Llevando Fisher, Northern Cheyenne Tribe 
Administration, to Jon Wilkins, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (filed May 25, 2016); Letter 
from Cindy Dozier, Hinsdale County, CO, Board of County Commissioners, to Jon Wilkins, Chief, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (filed May 25, 2016); Letter from LoRenzo C. Bates, 23rd Navajo Nation 
Council, Office of the Speaker, to Jon Wilkins, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (filed May 26, 
2016); Letter from Janelle Kukuk, Mineral County, CO, Board of Commissioners, to Jon Wilkins, Chief, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (filed May 26, 2016); Letter from Q. Val Hale, Utah Governor’s Office of 
Economic Development, to Tom Wheeler, Chairman, FCC (filed May 31, 2016); Letter from Godfrey Enjady, 
National Tribal Telecommunications Association, to Jon Wilkins, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
FCC (filed June 2, 2016) (NTTA Letter).  Certain of those parties also note that the Commission did not consider 
ATN’s foreign operations when providing a tribal land bidding credit in the 700 MHz auction.  See, e.g., NTTA 
Letter at 2.
28 See N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc., and Union Telephone Company Comments at 2 (N.E. Colorado Comments).  
29 N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc., and Union Telephone Company cite two recent acquisitions by ATN, including one 
with a purchase price of $145 million.  See id. at 4-5. 
30 Id. at 3-4.
31 Petitioners Reply at 3-4.  
32 Id. at 7.
33 Id. at 9, 11.
34 47 CFR § 1.2110(f)(4).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-811 
5
10. The Commission adopted the subscriber threshold in Section 1.2110(f)(4)(i)(A) as a 
mechanism to limit the rural service provider bidding credit to entities that serve a smaller customer base 
and exclude entities that “do not have the same demonstrated need for a bidding credit.”35 As the 
Commission made clear, the bidding credit is intended to apply to only those rural providers that are 
“relatively small [but] not eligible for small business bidding credits under our size standards to assist 
them in competing against larger carriers at auction.”36 The Commission explained that it will determine 
whether a provider has fewer than 250,000 subscribers using “an approach similar to how we attribute 
revenues in the small business bidding credit context, and will determine eligibility by attributing the 
subscribers of the applicant, its controlling interests, its affiliates, and the affiliates of its controlling 
interests.”37 The Commission rejected an alternative proposal that would not have required aggregating 
affiliates’ subscribers because it sought to avoid awarding a bidding credit to an applicant that would 
“likely have access to the financial resources of its controlling interests and affiliates,” concluding that 
such approach “would be inequitable and contrary to the our policy of providing a bidding credit to those 
designated entities that have difficulty in obtaining access to capital.”38 This focus on the availability of 
financial resources of affiliates is no less applicable to affiliates operating outside the U.S. but under 
common control.39 Given the language of the Commission’s rule, and its explanatory statements in the 
Part 1 Report and Order, we find no basis for Petitioners’ assertion that “[f]inancial size” and access to 
capital are “irrelevant” in the rural service provider bidding credit context.40 The policy rationale is 
similar to that which applies to the eligibility standards for the small business bidding credit, which 
contain no exclusions from attribution to an applicant of revenues of all its controlling interests, affiliates, 
and affiliates of the applicant’s controlling interests without regard to where such entities operate or 
whether the applicant actually avails itself of those financial resources.  Accordingly, as specified in the 
Part 1 Report and Order, we require a consistent attribution approach for the rural service provider 
bidding credit with respect to subscribers.41  
11. Our interpretation of the Commission’s rule is also in step with precedent for analogous 
purposes outside the auction bidding credit context.  In C-TEC Cable, C-TEC sought to qualify for small 
system rate relief, which was limited to companies with fewer than 400,000 subscribers.42 Because it 
surpassed that threshold only when the subscribers of its foreign affiliate were included, C-TEC argued 
  
35 Part 1 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 7534, para. 98.
36 Id. at 7531, para. 91.  
37 Id. at 7535, para. 99.  The Commission adopted the subscriber attribution rule in Section 1.2110(f)(4)(i)(C).  See
47 CFR § 1.2110(f)(4)(i)(C) (aggregating subscribers of “applicant (or licensee), its affiliates, its controlling 
interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests”).  
38 Part 1 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 7535, para. 100.        
39 Contrary to Petitioners’ suggestion, the Commission had no obligation to catalog each category of subscribers in 
order for it to be covered by the rule. See N.E. Colorado Comments at 2, 5 (“If the Commission had intended for the 
rule’s subscriber calculation to encompass only American subscribers, it could have written the rule to say so.”).
40 Petitioners Reply at 3.
41 Notwithstanding the Commission’s adoption of a similar attribution approach in the Part 1 Report and Order, 
Petitioners attempt to distinguish the eligibility criteria for the two bidding credits by arguing that the Commission 
never equated revenues with subscribers in the Part 1 Report and Order and that revenues are fungible, while 
subscribers are not.  See id.  Even if so, as discussed above, the Commission has adopted revenue- and subscriber-
based standards, both of which are intended to exclude well-financed applicants from obtaining bidding credits 
intended for entities that lack adequate access to capital.  While subscribers may not be perfectly equivalent to 
revenues, subscribers – whether domestic or foreign – generate a monthly revenue stream to a service provider, 
which can become a substantial source of capital as the number of subscribers increases.
42 C-TEC Cable System of Michigan, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 6189 (Cable Serv. Bur. 1996) (C-TEC Cable), recon. denied 
in pertinent part, 13 FCC Rcd 16488, para. 6 (Cable Serv. Bur. 1998).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-811 
6
that the threshold was limited to domestic subscribers.43 The Cable Services Bureau rejected this 
argument.44 After observing that the Commission’s pertinent order could have easily restricted the 
threshold to domestic subscribers if it had intended to do so, the Bureau explained that the Commission 
intended the subscriber threshold to “limit relief to those systems that ‘do not have access to the financial 
resources, purchasing discounts, and other efficiencies of larger companies.’”45 The Bureau found “no 
basis to conclude that such efficiencies, including factors such as cable management expertise and 
programming and equipment discounts, are less significant simply because some of the subscribers from 
which those efficiencies derive are foreign.”46  
12. Petitioners rely on the fact that they satisfy the second requirement for eligibility for the 
bidding credit, which concerns service to predominantly rural areas of the United States.47 However, the 
two requirements are separate and distinct:  one is based on the provider’s likely access to capital and 
other resources as measured by subscribers, and the other focuses on whether the provider serves 
predominantly rural areas in the United States.  For the reasons stated above, we are unable to conclude 
from an examination of its language and purpose that the rule excludes Petitioners’ foreign affiliates from 
attribution to SAL for purposes of determining SAL’s eligibility for a rural service provider bidding 
credit. 
13. To receive a waiver under Section 1.925 of the Commission’s rules, Petitioners must 
demonstrate that: (1) the underlying purpose of the rule would not be served or would be frustrated by 
application to the instant case, and that a grant of the waiver would be in the public interest, or (2) in view 
of the unique or unusual factual circumstances of the instant case, application of the rule would be 
inequitable, unduly burdensome or contrary to the public interest, or that the applicant has no reasonable 
alternative to seeking a waiver of the rule.48 Based on the record before us, we conclude that the waiver
request should be denied.
14. With respect to the first prong of the waiver standard, Petitioners argue that the purpose 
of the rural service provider bidding credit rule is to “encourage significant competition in the Incentive 
Auction for licenses in rural areas,” and that this regulatory purpose would be frustrated if we attribute the 
subscribers of Petitioners’ foreign affiliates to SAL and thus determine SAL to be ineligible for a bidding 
credit.49 Petitioners claim that due to ATN’s limited domestic operations and relatively small overall size, 
SAL “is precisely the type of auction applicant the Commission intended to benefit” with this bidding 
credit and that SAL’s ability to compete in Auction 1002 would be “significantly impeded” in the absence 
of a bidding credit.50 We find that Petitioners have not demonstrated that they satisfy the first prong of 
the waiver standard.
15. Petitioners have not shown that the application of the eligibility rule would frustrate the 
underlying purpose of the rural service provider bidding credit as required by Section 1.925(b)(3)(i).  
Indeed, we find the opposite.  As discussed above, the Commission established an eligibility standard 
based on total subscribers to define the class of providers that need the bidding credit and exclude 
  
43 C-TEC Cable, 11 FCC Rcd at 6194-95, paras. 14-15.
44 Id. at 6194-95, para. 15.
45 Id. at 6195, para. 15 (quoting Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and 
Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC 
Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995)).
46 Id.
47 See Waiver Petition at 4, 7 n.5; Petitioners Reply at 4.
48 See 47 CFR §§ 1.925(b)(3)(i)-(ii).
49 Waiver Petition at 7 (quoting Part 1 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 7537, para. 106); Petitioners Reply at 6-7.
50 Waiver Petition at 6, 8; Petitioners Reply at 7.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-811 
7
providers that do not have the same need for the credit.51 Notably, the Commission concluded that a 
threshold of fewer than 250,000 subscribers “is large enough to permit rural service providers to seek 
spectrum licenses at auction, expand their coverage areas, grow their subscriber base, and continue to be 
eligible for bidding credits in future spectrum auctions.”52 Petitioners contend that their total of fewer 
than 500,000 worldwide subscribers makes them a “small player” relative to other telecommunications 
firms.53 That number of subscribers is well above the rule’s threshold of fewer than 250,000 subscribers.  
Accordingly, we are unable to determine that SAL falls within the class of providers the Commission 
intended to benefit with a rural service provider bidding credit and therefore conclude that application of 
the eligibility standard would promote, not frustrate, the underlying purpose of the rule to limit the benefit 
of the bidding credit based on likely access to capital and other resources.54 In this regard, we note that 
ATN has itself made note of its “lower cost of capital.”55 Similarly, in its recently granted applications to 
acquire incumbent local exchange, wireless, and cable subscriber operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
ATN has again emphasized the acquired companies’ “access to capital on favorable terms . . . [a]s part of 
ATN’s consolidated businesses.”56
16. We are also unpersuaded by Petitioners’ contention that we should waive the eligibility 
requirement and allow SAL to claim eligibility for a rural service provider bidding credit to “level the 
playing field with other rural service providers” and place SAL “on an equal footing with its auction 
competitors.”57 It is far from clear that competition in the auction or the provision of competitive services 
would be advanced by granting a waiver in these circumstances as asserted by Petitioners.58 While SAL 
itself would likely benefit from a 15 percent bidding credit, it is the Commission’s oft-stated policy to 
protect and enhance competition, not competitors.59 SAL’s justification is limited to its own difficulty 
winning licenses and is therefore unpersuasive.60 In this case, other applicants would almost certainly be 
prejudiced by a waiver.  That is, rural bidders with fewer than 250,000 subscribers would have to compete 
for spectrum licenses with the same bidding credit against SAL with its expanding worldwide subscriber 
  
51 See Part 1 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 7534-35, para. 98.  
52 Id. 
53 Petitioners assert that they have fewer than 500,000 worldwide subscribers, see Waiver Petition at 3, though it is 
not clear whether this figure includes Petitioners’ recent merger and acquisition activity, see infra n.56.  
54 We are not inclined to revisit in the context of a waiver request the Commission’s decision to set the threshold at 
250,000 subscribers, for those applicants, such as SAL, that claim to come close and do not surpass some new 
threshold.  Indeed, the Commission has cautioned the Bureau against using the waiver process to create ad hoc 
standards in the auction context.  See Barry P. Lunderville et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 
665, 672-73, paras. 15-18 (2013).
55 Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K), at 2 (Feb. 29, 2016) (ATN 10-K).
56 Description of Proposed Transaction, Public Interest Statement, and Related Requests and Showings at 18 (WC 
Docket No. 15-264) (filed Oct. 30, 2015).  See also id. at ii (“superior access to capital”); Applications of National 
Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation and Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc. for Consent To Transfer Control 
of Licenses and Authorizations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 16-673, para. 36 & n.112 
(WCB/IB/MB/WTB June 15, 2016) (granting transfer of control applications and expecting the combined company 
to have “greater purchasing power” due to ATN’s cash and cash equivalent holdings and ATN’s existing credit 
facility with no borrowings).
57 Petitioners Reply at 11. 
58 See Petitioners Reply at 8.
59 See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems and NYNEX Mobile Communications Co., Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22280, 22288 (1997); SBC Communications Inc. v. FCC, 56 F.3d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
60 See Petitioners Reply at 7-8.  In any event, Petitioners acknowledge that predicting different outcomes of Auction 
73 if SAL would have had a bidding credit is speculative.  See id. at 8 n.23.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-811 
8
base.61 Petitioners assert that SAL needs the bidding credit because nine applicants claiming the rural 
service provider bidding credit serve more domestic subscribers than do SAL and its affiliates.62 In so 
doing, Petitioners ignore their foreign subscribers and overlook the converse interpretation of the 
application data – i.e., that 19 applicants serve fewer domestic subscribers than SAL, yet would have to 
compete with the same bidding credit if a waiver were granted to SAL.63 At the same time, certain larger 
providers that are ineligible for a bidding credit would be handicapped bidding against a similarly situated 
provider that has a bidding credit.64 Neither potential outcome is in the public interest.    
17. In addition, granting a waiver would not be in the public interest because the Commission 
chose to adopt a bright-line subscriber threshold, which provides certainty for all prospective auction 
participants with respect to whether an applicant would qualify for a rural service provider bidding credit.  
The administrative efficiency associated with such a rule would be undermined if the Commission were 
required to engage in a case-by-case examination of an applicant’s financial resources and conclude 
whether an applicant may need a bidding credit to compete effectively in an auction.  A similar burden 
would result if we were to take on the task of assessing the income and spending habits of consumers 
throughout the world, as Petitioners suggest we do with respect to its affiliate serving Guyana.65 Granting 
Petitioners a waiver of the rural service provider bidding credit eligibility rule would lay the groundwork 
for similar future waiver requests to obtain bidding credits.  For this reason, the Bureau has routinely 
rejected waiver requests from applicants when the strict requirements to qualify for bidding credits have 
not been met.66 And as the Commission recently stated, “our duty to preserve the integrity of the auction 
  
61 See supra n.56.  N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc., and Union Telephone Company indicate that ATN’s market 
capitalization is nearly $1.2 billion and ATN’s annual revenue in 2015 was over $355 million.  See N.E. Colorado 
Comments at 3.  They further claim that ATN “has access to public markets and is able to borrow funds at rates not 
available to small companies.”  Id. As noted above, rather than attempt to rebut the substance of this argument, 
Petitioners simply characterize their financial resources as “irrelevant.”  Petitioners Reply at 3.   
62 See id. at 11.
63 Further, we cannot be certain that other parties might have applied to participate in Auction 1002 and/or seek a 
rural service provider bidding credit had the rule provided an exemption from attribution all foreign subscribers of 
an applicant and its affiliates.    
64 Petitioners acknowledge that there are 17 Auction 1002 applicants that did not claim eligibility for a bidding 
credit.  See Petitioners Reply at 9.  Although Petitioners assert that none is similarly situated to SAL, Petitioners 
wrongly limit their inquiry to domestic – not worldwide – subscribers.  Id.  Accordingly, we are not convinced that 
Petitioners have made the requisite showing that SAL is unique and that a bidding credit would not impair 
competition with these applicants.      
65 Petitioners provide Guyana’s population and monthly average revenue per user (ARPU) and assert that their 
foreign affiliates serve less developed markets.  See Waiver Petition at 11; Letter from Jonathan V. Cohen, Counsel 
for ATN International, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, AU Docket No. 14-252 et al., at 1-2 (filed June 
30, 2016). 
66 See Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 13735 (WTB MD 2006) (denying request 
to waive spousal affiliation rule when applicant sought very small business bidding credit); Corr Wireless 
Communications, LLC, Auction No. 44, Waiver Request, Letter Order, 18 FCC Rcd 25153 (WTB/ASAD 2003) 
(denying request to exclude one-time, capital gain income from annual revenues for purposes of qualifying for very 
small business bidding credit).  Petitioners cite just one order as precedent for a waiver here.  See Petitioners Reply 
at 12 n.33 (citing Cross Wireless, LLC Waiver of Section 54.1003(a) of the Commission’s Rules, Order, 28 FCC Rcd 
12849 (WTB/ASAD 2013) (Cross Wireless)).  But Cross Wireless did not involve an applicant’s petition for waiver 
so that it could qualify for a bidding credit.  Rather, on our own motion, we granted Cross a waiver post-auction so 
as not to disturb Cross’s winning Mobility Fund Phase I support in three census tracts due to a two-week 
administrative delay in obtaining ETC status.  See id. at 12851-52, paras. 6-9. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-811 
9
process requires the certain and strict application of the auction rules and that it would be fundamentally 
unfair to do otherwise.”67
18. In sum, the purpose of the subscriber threshold was to establish a clear-cut standard by 
which the Commission determines those rural providers that should be eligible for the bidding credit 
based upon the same “consolidated” position of the applicant and all its affiliates that ATN has elsewhere 
emphasized.68 While Petitioners argue that we should waive that standard based on a finding that it is a 
rural provider the Commission intended to benefit,69 that argument presumes the very issue in question 
that the rule was intended to resolve.  Case-by-case determinations that an applicant is eligible to receive 
the bidding credit based on its service to rural areas would frustrate the purpose of the rule, and following 
the rule here would serve its purpose, rather than frustrate it.  Uniform application of the rule will best 
serve its underlying purpose, and, accordingly, the public interest.
19. Petitioners have also failed to meet the second prong of the Section 1.925(b)(3) waiver 
standard.70 We are not persuaded that the existence of “significant international operations” and 
associated foreign subscribers is a unique or unusual circumstance such that application of the rule would 
be inequitable, unduly burdensome or contrary to the public interest.71 Petitioners also cite as unique 
“ATN’s commitment to serving underserved rural and remote areas,” including tribal lands, and claim 
that because their foreign affiliates (and subscribers) were never previously considered when competing 
for federal grants or tribal bidding credits, it would be inequitable and unduly burdensome to consider 
them when determining eligibility for a bidding credit in Auction 1002.72 We do not consider Petitioners’ 
prior service history to be a unique circumstance warranting a waiver.73 Not all existing rural service 
  
67 John Edward Ostlund and Hilo Broadcasting, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 14918, 
14919, para. 3 (2015) (internal quotation omitted) (denying waiver of interference limits).  See also Mary V. Harris 
Foundation v. FCC,  776 F.3d 21, 28-29 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (upholding Commission decision regarding award of a 
noncommercial educational (NCE) FM construction permit in case in which Media Bureau had denied waiver of 
rule requiring showing of NCE service to 10% underserved area, to applicant proposing a 9.46% underserved area 
where the bright-line threshold had been adopted to provide easy administration of NCE selection preferences); 
Requests for Waiver of Section 24.711(b)(3) of the Commission’s Rules Establishing the Interest Rate on Installment 
Payments for C Block PCS Licenses, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 9298, 9302, para. 7 (1999) 
(“[A] strict adherence to a general rule may be justified by the gain in certainty and administrative ease, even if it 
appears to result in some hardship in individual cases.”) (internal quotation omitted).
68 See supra para. 15 & nn.55-56; ATN 10-K at 6 (reporting consolidated revenues for wireline services in Guyana 
and the United States).
69 See Waiver Petition at 6.
70 47 CFR § 1.925(b)(3)(ii).
71 Petitioners Reply at 9.
72 See Waiver Petition at 9-11; Petitioners Reply at 9-10.  Tribal commenters also cite Petitioners’ ability to obtain 
the tribal land bidding credit in the 700 MHz auction, which purportedly facilitated LTE deployment.  See, e.g., 
NTTA Letter at 2.  
73 We recognize that many regulated providers provide essential services to the public, but that alone is insufficient 
to satisfy the established standard for waiver of Commission rules.  See Satellite Signals of New England, Inc., 
Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1937, 1946, para. 17 (WTB 2007) (“Neither an asserted intent to provide service to rural areas 
nor actual service to rural areas warrants a waiver . . . .”); Duluth PCS, Inc. and St. Joseph PCS, Inc., Order, 19 FCC 
Rcd 7137, 7141-42, paras. 8-9 (WTB/ASAD 2004) (rejecting petitioner’s claim that “circumstances are unique in 
that it provides service to rural areas and tribal lands with low telephone service penetration rates” and denying 
request for waiver of installment payment deadline).  Likewise, Petitioners’ claims that they acted “diligently” in 
preparing SAL’s Auction 1002 application and that their interpretation of the rural service provider bidding credit 
rule to exclude foreign subscribers “was not unreasonable,” Petitioners Reply at 11-12, are not relevant to our 
determination here.  Petitioners’ purported good faith is not a unique circumstance; nor does it suggest that SAL has 
no reasonable alternative other than a waiver.  SAL’s application was deemed complete, and SAL was found to be 
qualified to bid in Auction 1002, which will begin on August 16, 2016.  See generally Upfront Payment Instructions 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-811 
10
providers are eligible for a bidding credit; the subscriber threshold is specifically designed to limit 
eligibility to only those rural providers with fewer than 250,000 subscribers.  Undoubtedly, other 
providers, particularly those that serve more than 250,000 subscribers, have a similar list of rural 
deployments and accomplishments.74 Consequently, Petitioners have not demonstrated a compelling 
reason for us to provide an exclusive advantage to them in this auction by granting a waiver.   
20. We also fail to see how previously qualifying for other types of bidding credits or federal 
grants in certain circumstances renders the failure to obtain a different bidding credit, based on different 
criteria, inequitable or unduly burdensome.  As discussed above, the Commission followed a similar 
approach for the rural service provider bidding credit as the small business bidding credit, ignoring the 
other contexts of federal assistance cited by Petitioners.  Moreover, the tribal lands bidding credit that 
Petitioners and tribal commenters repeatedly refer to is not analogous to the rural service provider bidding 
credit.  Most importantly, the tribal lands bidding credit has no eligibility requirements that would 
disqualify a provider with significant financial resources from seeking the credit; rather, the credit is 
aimed at encouraging service in tribal lands from all providers, whether big or small.75 In any event, 
contradicting their claims of an undue burden from having to compete against other providers without a 
bidding credit, Petitioners acknowledge that they have successfully deployed service in rural areas 
without federal assistance.76  
21. We conclude, therefore, that Petitioners have not shown that a waiver is warranted under 
either prong of the Section 1.925(b)(3) waiver standard.77  
  
(...continued from previous page)
for the Forward Auction (Auction 1002) of the Broadcast Television Spectrum Incentive Auction; Updated Appendix 
on Upfront Payment Amounts; Upfront Payments Due by July 1, 2016, Public Notice, DA 16-625, para. 18 (WTB 
June 8, 2016); 62 Applicants Qualified To Bid in the Forward Auction (Auction 1002) of the Broadcast Television 
Incentive Auction; Clock Phase Bidding To Begin on August 16, 2016, Public Notice, DA 16-796, Attach. A (WTB 
July 15, 2016) (Qualified Bidder Public Notice).  
74 For example, N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc., and Union Telephone Company state that they “like many other small 
carriers, are serving rural America in a similarly commendable fashion, often without the benefit of federal subsidies 
and without the benefit of access to the public markets.”  See N.E. Colorado Comments at 5.
75 See 47 CFR § 1.2110(f)(3); Extending Wireless Telecommunications Services to Tribal Lands, Report and Order 
and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 11794, 11800, para. 16 (2000) (“[W]e find that 
establishing bidding credits for carriers, regardless of size, who agree to extend coverage to tribal areas is in the 
public interest.”) (emphasis added).
76 See Waiver Petition at 10 n.23.
77 As noted above, SAL has been determined to be qualified to bid in Auction 1002 and thus will have access to the 
Auction System, which is designed to provide each bidder with real-time information about its total bid amount 
(referred to as the “commitment”) – both gross and net (i.e., inclusive of any claimed bidding credits).  At this point 
in the forward auction process, the Auction System is not capable of reflecting modifications to the bidding credit 
shown for any applicant, and therefore, the Auction System will display for SAL its net commitment with the rural 
service provider bidding credit applied, as well as (gross) commitment.  That display does not change the 
determination we make herein; nor should SAL interpret that to mean that it is in fact entitled to the rural service 
provider bidding credit.  See also Qualified Bidder Public Notice at 1-2 n.2 (SAL claim for bidding credit subject to 
the outcome of these proceedings).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-811 
11
22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and 309(j) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 309(j) and the 
authority delegated pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 47 CFR 
§§ 0.131(c), 0.331, the Petition for Waiver filed by Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc., and SAL Spectrum, LLC, 
and the requests for relief sought therein, are DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Jon Wilkins
Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau