WPCgT 2BJ Courier#|jJx6X@`7X@Times New Roman (TT)Additional)HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\7{X@26 ZF%#|jHHP LASERJET 4/M LPT2(Additional)HL4MPCAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\7{XPTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8::=~:>iO<header;Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference<;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1=&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2B?^=@OH?A @VAheading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!@!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BТ7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,|Xn4  pG;XW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPB   `#{  I "   2J3.CXyEKGFZTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,|Xn4  pG;XW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPj]F&\ >2&Eh>2&9]hw&u&Gxt2&GxtvVyVpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddddYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"i~'^#)0<   X -ԍ See DA 951365.> On July 3, 1995, Claircom filed an opposition to PP88, arguing that InFlight's audio programming service is not innovative. Claircom maintains that USA Today Sky Radio filed an experimental application to provide a satellitebased live broadcast service almost simultaneously with InFlight's experimental application, and argues that except for the mode of transmission, the proposed services were almost identical. Claircom also contends that live groundtoair audio programming was proposed years before InFlight filed its pioneer's preference request and that, in any event," ,**3"  X-retransmission of live programming from broadcast stations is not innovative.9 Xy-Ѝ See "Claircom Licensee Corporation Opposition to Pioneer's Preference Request of InFlight Corporation." (Between the time of its opposition filed in Docket 92100 and the instant filing, Claircom changed it name from Claircom Communications Group, L.P.)9 On July 13, 1995, InFlight filed a reply reasserting that its proposal is innovative, that it developed technical innovations that make possible the provision of a groundtoair programming service from terrestrial transmitters in an efficient and costeffective manner, and that its experimental license application and petition for rule making to establish a groundtoair service were both  X-filed three months prior to USA Today Sky Radio's experimental application.qK X -ԍ See "Reply of InFlight Phone Corporation to Claircom Opposition."q  XH- III. DISCUSSION TP  X -h 10. With respect to InFlight's proposals set forth in its October 1992 pioneer's preference request, March 1995 Petition for Declaratory Ruling, June 1995 Supplement, and experimental reports, we conclude that the information submitted therein fails to justify a preference in the instant proceeding. First, we find that the GWCS service rules are not a  X -reasonable outgrowth of InFlight's groundtoair programming service proposal . While, in developing these rules, we sought to allow licensees to provide a wide variety of fixed and mobile services in order to meet various needs, we did not craft the rules based on In-Flight's proposal. Rather, InFlight's groundtoair programming service is only one of a multitude of services that could be provided in the GWCS. Awarding InFlight a preference in this proceeding would therefore be inconsistent with our pioneer's preference rules, which state,  X4-inter alia: "In determining in its discretion whether to grant a pioneer's preference, the Commission will consider whether the applicant has demonstrated that it (or its predecessor-in-interest) has developed an innovative proposal that leads to the establishment of a service not currently provided or a substantial enhancement of an existing service. Additionally, the preference will be granted only if rules, as adopted, are a reasonable  X-outgrowth of the proposal and lend themselves to the grant of a preference."K Xn-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  1.402(a).K The GWCS rules were developed independently from InFlight's proposal, and cannot therefore be viewed  X- as "a reasonable outgrowth of the proposal."  Xe-h 11. Second, we find that InFlight has failed to demonstrate the technical feasibility of its proposal in the 46604685 MHz band. InFlight's technical achievements in developing and testing equipment in the 901902 MHz and 940941 MHz bands are not directly relevant to the 46604685 MHz band due to differences in propagation. The latter band is five times as high in frequency and is in the Super High Frequency (SHF) range, whereas the 900 MHz bands are in the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) range. A study prepared at the time the Commission was considering allocating frequencies for an airground radiotelephone service in the 800900 MHz range stated that differences in propagation between the 900 MHz range" ,**"  X-and higher bands could be significant. Xy-Ѝ See "AirToGround Propagation at 900 MHz," by Joseph R. Child. A copy of this study has been placed in the record of this proceeding. Nowhere in the material submitted by InFlight is  X-there any reference to testing or construction of prototypes above the 900 MHz range.+b X-Ѝ In-Flight requested a modification to its experimental 900 MHz license in October 1994 to change frequencies to 2390-2400 MHz, and a new experimental license for the latter band was issued. In-Flight has reported no results from this new license. + Accordingly, InFlight has failed to establish a nexus between its achievements at 900 MHz and its request for a pioneer's preference in the 46604685 MHz band.  X-h 12. Finally, we agree with Claircom that InFlight's proposed groundtoair entertainment service is not sufficiently innovative to warrant a preference in any band. In analyzing the technical components of InFlight's pioneer's preference request, we find that InFlight has not demonstrated that its technological developments are innovative in either the 900 MHz or the 46604685 MHz bands given the current stateoftheart technologies used in providing 800 MHz airground radiotelephone service. InFlight failed to demonstrate that the special circuitry it proposes for mitigating the effects of multipath interference and the errorless, ratebuffered switch circuitry it proposes for providing seamless handoff between ground stations  X -are beyond the technologies used in that service.  Xk-Ѝ We note that InFlight received its license to provide 800 MHz airground telephone service in December 1990.  X -h 13. In sum, we deny InFlight's pioneer's preference request for the reasons discussed above the GWCS rules are not a reasonable outgrowth of InFlight's proposal; InFlight has not shown the technical feasibility of its proposal for the 46604685 MHz band; and InFlight's proposal is not sufficiently innovative to warrant a preference.  X-1 IV. ORDERING CLAUSE S ă  X-h 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the pioneer's preference request (PP88) filed by InFlight Phone Corporation in this proceeding IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the request for pioneer's preference filed by InFlight Phone Corporation in ET Docket No. 92100 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the petition for declaratory ruling filed by InFlight Phone Corporation IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: