STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re: Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License 
Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum 
Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112
I do not undertake changing the terms or requirements for existing licenses lightly. Commission 
licensees rely on our rules to formulate auction strategies and in making business decisions regarding 
capital-intensive network builds. The stability of our successful auction policies and licensing paradigm, 
including renewal expectancy and buildout requirements, have allowed our wireless providers – big and 
small – the needed certainty to invest, construct, innovate, upgrade and expand their offerings, and 
generally focus on providing the best service to their consumers.  In fact, I have argued as much with 
many of our international colleagues who occasionally seek to reauction licenses, modify buildout 
policies or change course to meet conflicting policy goals.  Such actions are usually at cross purposes to 
producing the environment needed to actually get networks built. 
Occasionally, however, there is a need to modify flawed or outdated rules. This is one of those 
times. I can support today’s order because not only does it harmonize rules for spectrum bands offering 
similar services, but, more importantly, it provides certainty that did not exist under our previous rules.  
For instance, comparative hearings will finally and officially be a thing of the past, and there will no 
longer be a debate about what exactly does the Commission mean by “substantial service.”  Instead, these 
are replaced with safe harbors.  Generally, an entity that operates consistent with its last buildout 
requirement, and can certify compliance with certain other rules, will be renewed.  
If, for some reason, an entity can’t make such a certification, they can submit a detailed showing 
supporting renewal.  While I am not a fan of the case-by-case determinations that the in-depth renewal 
showing entails, most entities should be covered by the safe harbor. In fact, over the last two weeks, a 
few concerns were raised by industry participants that the safe harbor was written in such a way that 
entities would be unable to use it.  The item we vote today incorporates edits that should resolve these, 
and other, issues. Hopefully, we struck the right balance.
Regarding the further notice, I agree with the underlying goals it is trying to achieve.  I have been 
a staunch supporter of strictly enforcing our buildout requirements and reconsidering our construction 
benchmarks going forward. Therefore, I am supportive of seeking comment on strengthening 
construction requirements for new licenses or providing current licensees with voluntary options, such as 
increasing their coverage areas in exchange for longer license terms.  These ideas are now teed up in the
notice, and I thank the Chairman for accepting my suggested edits. For this reason, I can vote to approve
the further notice. 
However, I do want to raise serious concerns about possibly increasing the buildout requirements 
for existing licenses, which I am unlikely to support such efforts if they move forward. Licensees made 
decisions based on the rules at the time and bid accordingly.  To consider altering these requirements for 
licensees is beyond bad faith.  We certainly wouldn’t have generated the auction bids or revenues we did 
had participants been on notice, in advance of the auction, that we can alter the terms and conditions, and 
we risk our sound auction policy, not to mention years of litigation, in the process.  
Moreover, I also must ask how this fits in with our universal service fund efforts, such as
Mobility Fund.  Basically, are we forcing licensees to absorb the costs of serving additional areas that we
previously have found in need of subsidization. Further, are we going to fund buildout and operations in 
areas where we are going to require licensees to serve?  Are we going to force companies receiving 
2subsidies to absorb the costs of expanding service to adjacent or additional areas where there is little 
business case for doing so?  These and other questions need to be answered before ever going down this 
route.
Furthermore, I am concerned about the precedent we are setting. If we can change licensees’
buildout requirements, what other modifications can be made to meet the various policy goals of the day.  
Can a future Commission randomly add behavioral conditions like we do in the merger context, can we 
force sharing or leasing, or can we decide that a current licensee just holds too much spectrum in a market 
and force them to divest or take it back?  Now I know this isn’t the intention of my colleagues, but this
slope seems to be mighty slippery and that is a risk I will just not be willing to take.