_____________Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-323
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C 20554
In the Matter of )
Global Cellular Communication, Inc. ) Lottery ID No. 049
)Application for authority ) 
to construct and operate a ) 
nationwide, commercial ) 
220 MHz SMR System, ) 
Channels 151-155 )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Adopted: July 29,1996 Released: September 18,1996
By the Commission:
Introduction and Executive Summary
1. On November 1, 1994, National Communications Group, Capital Communications 
Group, Columbia Communications Group, Lonesome Dove Communications Group, Ail- 
American Communications Partners, and Shiner Bock Group (collectively, "Petitioners") filed 
an Application of Review challenging the application filed by Global Cellular 
Communication, Inc. ("Global") for a five-channel, nationwide, commercial 220 MHz 
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) system. Petitioners assert that Global failed to adequately 
establish its financial qualifications. For the reasons that follow, the Application for Review 
is denied.
Background
2. Oh March 31, 1993, the Commission conducted a lottery for nationwide 220 MHz 
SMR licenses.1 The results of the lottery were released on April 1,1993.2 Global was one of 
four lottery winners, but Petitioners were not among the applicants selected in the lottery. On 
May 3, 1993, Petitioners filed an informal opposition to Global's application. Pursuant to 
delegated authority, the former Private Radio Bureau ("Bureau") dismissed Petitioners'
' Public Notice, Commission Announces Lottery to Select Commercial Nationwide 220 MHz Band Private 
Land Mobile Licensees, DA 93-159 (released February 16, 1993), 58 FedReg. 9174 (February 19, 1993) 
("Nationwide 220 MHz Licenses Lottery Notice").
2 Public Notice, Commission Announces Tentpti3»$electees For 220-222 MHz Nationwide Commercial Private 
Land Mobile Channels, DA 93-376 (April 1, 1993).
factors, including, but not limited to, whether both parties knew or should have known that 
the activities in question would affect bidding or bidding strategies, and that the activities i-n 
fact had such an effect.
Sincerely.
Kathleen O'Brien Ham
Chief, Auctions Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
cc: Larry S. Roadman
11365
Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-323
objections as untimely filed and lacking in merit3 Petitioners filed a petition for 
reconsideration which was also denied.4 Petitioners now seek Commission review of the 
Bureau's decision.
3. Petitioners object to the Bureau's dismissal of their objections to Global's financial 
qualifications as untimely and lacking in merit. Global asserts in its Opposition to the 
Application for Review, filed November 1, 1994, that Petitioners are barred from contesting 
the grant of its application because the Public Notice released on February 16, 1993,5 listing 
Global's application for inclusion in the lottery, directed that objections to any applicant's 
suitability to be a licensee be filed within thirty days of the notice. This Public Notice states 
in pertinent part:
Additionally, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, any interested party may file 
information with the Commission that may reflect on the suitability of an applicant to 
be a licensee. Only allegations pertaining to applicants later granted tentative selectee 
status will be investigated and all allegations directed toward a given tentative selectee 
will be resolved prior to the issuance of a license to that tentative selectee. Corrections 
to the listing of applicants to be included in the lottery and information relating to 
the suitability of these applicants must be received by the Commission within 30 
days of the publication of this Public Notice in the Federal Register.6
4. The Commission published the Public Notice in the Federal Register on February 
19, 1993, making all objections due by March 21, 1993. Hie Public Notice provided for the 
orderly filing of Section 1.41 objections to any applicant's suitability to be a licensee, giving 
objecting parties assurance that their objections would be investigated and resolved prior to 
the grant of any licenses. Petitioners' Section 1.41 objections, filed May 3, 1993, were 
dismissed as untimely.7 Petitioners assert that the Public Notice related primarily to the 
listing of applicants. They assert that the Public Notice did not give sufficient notice that the 
Commission was requiring objections to financial qualifications to be filed by the deadline 
listed in the Public Notice.
5. The Bureau also found Petitioners' objections to Global's financial qualifications 
lacking in merit Petitioners object to Global's qualification on two bases. First, Petitioners
3 Global Cellular Communication, Inc., 8 FCC Red 8197 (1993), erratum 8 FCC Red 8748 (1993).
4 Letter to William Franklin, Esquire, fiorn W. Riley Hollingsworth, then Deputy Chief, Licensing Division 
dated September 15, 1994. Global was issued a license on September 19, 1994.
s See Nationwide 220 MHz Licenses Lottery Public Notice, supra, note 1.
6 Id (emphasis added)
7 8 FCC Red at 8197, para. 3.
11367
______________Federal Communications Commission_______FCC 96-323
assert that Global failed to establish its financial qualifications because it did not submit a 
commitment letter containing an original signature. This argument is based on the premise 
that the Commission appliesall of the common carrier financial qualification standards, 
including staff and Commission precedent explaining such standards, to this private radio 
service.8 They also now assert, for the first time, that the Commission's orders implementing 
the legislation pertaining to the regulatory treatment of mobile services require the application 
of common carrier precedent to the 220 MHz SMR service.9
6. Second, Petitioners argue that the obligation to provide financing contained in the 
commitment letter from Jericho State Capital Corp. ("Jericho") is illusory. Jericho included 
the following language in the commitment letter:
The Lender has relied upon these representations and upon the accuracy of the 
submissions provided by [GCCI] and its Principals to Lender in deciding to issue this 
commitment, and any misstatement in any of these submissions which Lender in its 
sole discretion deems material will, at Lender's sole option, void this commitment
Petitioners assert that this language allows the lender to void the commitment at will.10 
Global counters with the argument that the commitment is only voidable after a showing of a 
material misstatement, and that under New York law the lender's discretion in determining 
what constitutes a material misstatement is limited to a good faith determination.11
Discussion
7. Petitioners assert that 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 does not provide a deadline for filing
8 See, Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Allow the Selection From Among Mutually Exclusive 
Competing Cellular Applications Using Random Selection or Lotteries Instead of Comparative Hearings, 101 FCC 
2d 577, 590 (1985Xfootnote 32).
9 In 1993, Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 creating the regulatory category of 
Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS). The Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 
103-66, Title VI § 6002(b), 107 Stat. 312, 392 (1993). See Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the 
Communications Act, GN Dkt. No. 93-252, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Red 1411 (1994); Third Report and 
Order, 9 FCC Red 7988 (1994).
10 Application for Review at 8-9.
" See Cross & Cross Properties. Ltd. v Everett Allied Co., 886 F. 2d 497, 502 (2d Cir. 1989); Boston Road 
Shopping Center, Inc. v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Assoc., 213 N.Y.S. 2d 522 (1st Dept. 1961), qffd, 227 
N.Y:S. 2d 444, 182 N.E. 2d 116 (1962); Richard Bruce & Co., Inc. v. J. Simpson & Co., Inc., 243 N.Y.S. 2d 503, 
505-06 (1963). Jericho State Capital Corp. is a financial Institution located in New York. The borrower, Global, 
contractually agreed that Jericho's contractual agreement to provide funds for its nationwide 200 MHz system would 
be governed by New York state law. Letter from.Glenn M. Chwatt, Executive Vice President Jericho State Capitol 
Corp. to Global Cellular Communications, Inc. dated November 18, 1992, and accepted by Richard L. Brown on 
behalf of Global on November 18, 1992.
11368
Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-323
informal objections to applications.12 We agree with Petitioners that Section 1.41 of our rules, 
does not explicitly require informal requests for Commission action to be filed by a certain 
time. We note in this specific instance, however, that a filing deadline for informal 
objections was expressly imposed by the Public Notice. We further note that the Commission 
must, in certain instances, make and enforce certain procedural requirements in order to keep 
pace with the rapidly growing and changing telecommunications industry and to perform the 
tasks delegated to us by Congress. In this connection, we point to the February 16, 1993, 
Public Notice listing applicants for the nationwide 220 MHz lottery and requiring that any 
and all objections to their suitability as a licensee be filed within thirty days of publication in 
the Federal Register. This Public Notice was published in the Federal Register on February 
19, 1993. Accordingly, we affirm the Bureau's decision on this issue. Petitioners' 
Application for Review mistakenly asserts that the specific request for objections against the 
suitability by a specific date was intended only to assure that the lottery itself had no 
fundamental procedural flaws.13 Contrary to this assertion, the purpose of the notice was to 
facilitate the expeditious processing of objections so that lottery winners might rapidly begin 
provision of service. We find that the February 19, 1993, Public Notice provided all 
applicants with ample notice that informal objections relating to the suitability of applicants to 
be licensees were due within thirty days.
8. We also disagree with Petitioners' assertion that Global's application was 
deficient. Petitioners assert that Paragraph 20 of the Third Report and Order in GN Docket 
No. 93-252 implementing the legislation pertaining to the regulatory treatment of mobile 
services requires that CMRS licensees conform to all common carrier licensing procedures. 
Global asserts that this argument is improperly raised here for the first time. 14 We agree.15 
Additionally, Petitioners mischaracterize the paragraph they rely on in the Third Report and 
Order. Paragraph 20 requires only that the common carrier provisions enumerated in Title HI 
of the Communications Act be applied to CMRS providers, such as application forms and 
procedures, applicant qualifying information, application fees and regulatory fees, public 
notice and petition to deny procedures, treatment of mutually exclusive applications, use of 
competitive bidding procedures, amendment of applications and license modification, and 
conditional and special temporary authority.16 We note that many of these requirements 
pertain to the application process and the requisite contents of an application. Because 
Global's application already was granted when these requirements became effective, we
12 Petitioners' Application for Review at 3, note 2.
13 Application for Review at 3-4.
14 Opposition at 6-7.
15 See. 47 U.S.C § 155(cX5); 47 C.F.R. § I.I 15(c).
15 In their Reply to Opposition to Application for Review filed November 16. 1994, Petitioners assert that they 
quoted the pertinent part of the sentence and that quoting the whole sentence does not alter its meaning.
11369
Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-323
decline to adopt Petitioners' suggestion that Global's pending application should be judged on 
the basis of these subsequently adopted policies.17
9. In this connection, Petitioners' attempt to challenge Global's suitability to be a 
Commission licensee on the basis of its financial qualifications showing. When we adopted 
the rules governing nationwide 220 MHz financial qualification statements, our decision 
referenced, by footnote, the rule describing the firm financial commitment standard applicable 
in the common carrier context18 Petitioners argue that this footnote to the common carrier 
firm financial commitment standard resulted in the incorporation of an original signature 
requirement as well. We disagree with the Petitioners' reasoning. We consider the original 
signature component of the cellular lottery application process to be an ancillary element of 
the common carrier firm financial commitment standard. In this connection, we believe that 
absent express notice to all applicants of the Commission of adoption of an original signature 
rule in the nationwide 200 MHz context, the public interest would not be served by the 
enforcement of such a policy.19 Furthermore, because an original signature on a commitment 
letter is not otherwise required under Subpart T of Part 90, we believe applicants might have 
justifiably relied on the policy embodied in Section 1.52 of our Rules,20 which provides that a 
copy or facsimile of a signature is acceptable, provided that the party filing the facsimile 
signature retains the originals.
10. In addition, we agree with the Bureau's order below that our decision here does 
not mean that all common carrier precedent relating to the financial commitment standard is 
irrelevant Because the rule in Subpart T of Part 90 setting forth the 220 MHz financial 
commitment standard parallels a similar standard in Part 22 of our rules, common carrier 
precedent interpreting analogous Part 22 rules will be pertinent in determining the sufficiency 
of a financial commitment in the private land mobile radio context
11. Finally, we conclude that the Jericho commitment letter provides the type of
17 As noted above, Global received a license on September 19,1994. The Third Report and Order was released 
on September 24, 1994, and became effective on January 2,1995.
18 Report and Order, Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220-222 
MHz Band by Private Land Mobile Radio Services C'220 MHz Proceeding"), 6 FCC Red 2356, 2375 (1991Xnote 
109) affd, 1 FCC Red 4484 (1992) ('This constitutes adoption of a firm financial commitment standard. See, e.g., 
47 C.F.R. § 22.917(c).").
19 See, Maxell Telecom Plus, Inc. v FCC, 815 F.2d 1551,1558 (D.C. Or. 1987) (FCC must provide notice of 
the required content of applications that are reasonably comprehensible to persons acting in good faith).
20 47CRR.fl.52. 11370
Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-323
reasonable assurance of the availability of a loan that we are seeking from applicants.21 There 
has been no showing that the Jericho financing contract was anything less than a commitment 
from a financially responsible institution meeting the criteria established in the 220 MHz 
proceeding. Petitioners assert that we should not take Global and its lender's representations 
that a firm financial commitment existed at face value, but should weigh it separately.22 The 
Petitioners, however, fail to demonstrate that Global's analysis of the state law governing the 
interpretation of the commitment letter is erroneous.23
Conclusion
12. For the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Application for 
Review filed by National Communications Group, Capital Communications Group, Columbia 
Communications Group, Lonesome Dove Communications Group, All-American 
Communications Partners, and Shiner Bock Group on October 17, 1994, IS DI
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William F. Caton 
Acting Secretary
21 Report and Order, 220 MHz Proceeding, 6 FCC Red 2356,2363 (1991) ("These criteria should be sufficient 
to deter speculative applications."); see also, Fourth Report and Order, Amendment of the Commission's Rules for 
Rural Cellular Service,* FCC Red 2542, 2547 (1988) ("ft is our intention to limit outside sources of financing to 
those which have proven to be banafide, commercially acceptable sources. Thus we expect to eliminate the filing 
of multitudes of applications financially guaranteed by those who prepared them.").
22 Application for Review at 9-10.
23 See footnote 11, supra.
11371