Federal Communications Commission
	
DA 99-3017
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC
	
)
and
	
)
Marine Satellite Services, Inc.
	
)
)
Petition for Waiver of
	
)
Section 20.15(d) of the
	
)
Commission's Rules
	
)
ORDER
Adopted: December 28, 1999
	
Released: December 29, 1999
By the Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
1. On July 2, 1998, the Commission released its Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 98-100,' in which it determined, among other
things, to forbear from enforcing the requirement that Commercial Mobil Radio Service (CMRS)
providers file tariffs except in those situations in which a United States CMIRS provider has a
foreign affiliate.2 5. Section 20.15(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 20.15(d). In the
CMRS Forbearance Order, the Commission stated that the purpose of this rule is to enable it to
determine the presence of any anti-competitive price squeeze behavior by a CMRS provider.3
2. On July 13, 1999, Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC and Marine Satellite Services,
Inc. (collectively "Stratos"), filed a petition for waiver of section 20.15(d) of the Commission's
rules to permit Stratos to cancel its tariff in its entirety. Stratos stated that the Commission had
recently granted a request for a waiver of section 20.15(d) filed by GTE Airfone, Inc.4 and that
Personal Communications Indusiry Association's Broadband Personal Communications Services Alliance's Petition
for Forbearance for Broadband Personal Communications Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of
proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 16857 (1998) (CMRS Forbearance Order).
2Id. at 16884-87.
In the Matter of GTE Airfone. Inc.. Petition for Waiver of Section 20.15(d) of the Commission 's Rules, 14 FCC
Rcd. 7903 (Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 1999). See also In the Matter of Iridium, U.S., L.P., Motorola
Cellular Service, Inc.. and Motorola Worldwide Information Network Services, DA 99-1688 (released August 23,
1999).
79
Federal Communications Commission
	
DA 99-3017
similar circumstances existed in Stratos's case. Stratos also stated that it is required under Section
20.15(d) to file tariffs for service to only one country, Canada, where it is affiliated with a number
of carriers who accept settlement payments from U.S. carriers. Stratos asserted that the rates for
calls to Canada in its tariffs are the lowest rates charged for international calls. Specifically, Stratos
stated that it uses a zone system to determine international rates and that Canada is in "zone I (that
with the lowest rates) along with the United States, and will remain so. Stratos further argued that
the volume of such calls is too small to allow it to use the affiliations in an anti-competitive
manner, and that there is no reasonable alternative to a waiver.
3. We find that Stratos has met the standard for grant of its petition for waiver of section
20.15(d) of the Commission's rules. Absent a waiver, Stratos is required to file tariffs for
international calls to Canada. A request for a waiver of Commission rules must "set forth the
reasons in support thereof including a showing that unique circumstances are involved and that
there is no reasonable alternative within existing rules." We fmd that unique circumstances exist
here because Stratos's rates for all international calls are determined by use of a zone system. In
addition, we find that because the routes in question comprise only a very small portion of Stratos's
service, there is no opportunity for anti-competitive pricing behavior by Stratos on those routes.
Moreover, we note that in its waiver request Stratos affirmed its commitment to maintain its zone
system and keep Canada in zone 1. Finally, there is no reasonable alternative to the filing of tariffs
available to Stratos. Accordingly, we will grant its petition for waiver.
S. Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 37 C.F.R § 1.3; WAIT Radio v. FCC. 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969),
cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972).
80
Federal Communications Commission
	
DA 99-3017
• 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and section 0.33 1 of the Communication's rules, 47
C.F.R. 0.33 1, the petition filed by Stratos for waiver of the provisions of section 20.15(d) of the
Commission rules, 47 C.F.R. § 20.15(d), IS GRANTED.
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release, in
accordance with section 1.103 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.103.
Federal Communications Commission
William W. Kunze
Deputy Chief
Commercial Wireless Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
81
Federal Communications Commission
	
DA 99-3019
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of Application of
ASTROLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
	
FCC File No. 9506296
to Provide 39 GHz Point-to-Point Microwave
Service in Santa Fe, NM
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted: December28, 1999
	
Released: December29, 1999
By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless TelecommunicationsBureau:
1. Introduction. We have before us a request from Astrolink Communications, Inc. (Astrolink)
for reconsideration of the decision by the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch (Branch) to dismiss
an amendment to the above-captioned application to operate a new Point-to-Point Microwave Radio
Service system in the 38.6-40.0 GHz (39 GHz) band.' For the reasons set forth below, we deny
Astrolink's petition for reconsideration.
2. Background On June 15, 1995, Astrolink filed the above-referenced application for
authorization to provide 39 GHz point-to-point microwave service in Santa Fe, NM.2 On August 15,
1995, No Wire LLC (No Wire) timely filed a competing application that was mutually exclusive with the
Astrolink application.
3. In an NPRM and Order released on December 15, 1995, the Commission suspended the
processing of pending mutually exclusive 39 GHz applications and the filing of amendments thereto,
pending the outcome of a rulemaking proceeding affecting this service.4 In a Report and Order and
Second NPRM released on November 3, 1997, the Commission announced that it would dismiss, without
prejudice, pending mutually exclusive applications.5
1Letter from E. Ashton Johnston, counsel for Astrolink to Mary M. Shultz, Chief, Licensing arid Technical
Analysis Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division (filed Apr. 5, 1999) (Astrolink Petition).
2FCC File No. 9506296. See Public Notice, Report No. 1141, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Weekly
Receipts and Disposals (rel. June 28, 1995).
3FCC File No. 9508163. See Public Notice, Report No. 1147, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Weekly
Receipts and Disposals (rel. Aug. 9, 1995).
4Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, Notice of
ProposedRule Making and Order, ET Docket No. 95-183, 11 FCC Rcd 4930,4988-4989 ¶ 123 (1995).
5See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, Report and
Order and SecondNotice of ProposedRulemaking ETDocketNo. 95-183, 12 FCC Rcd 18600, l864l-45 87-97
(1997).
82