********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In re Applications of           )
                                )
ABC Wireless, L.L.C.            )       File No. 0000012954
                                )
For Various C Block PCS Licenses)



                                 
                             ORDER


   Adopted:  September 8, 1999          Released:  September 8, 1999

By the Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

     1.   In this Order, we dismiss Mountain Solutions Ltd., Inc.'s (Mountain Solutions) Petition to
Deny (Petition) the long-form application (FCC Form 601) filed by ABC Wireless, L.L.C. (ABC Wireless),
a winning bidder in Auction 22, the C, D, E and F block broadband PCS license auction that closed on April
15, 1999.  Mountain Solutions argues that ABC Wireless has not demonstrated that it is eligible to hold C
block licenses because it failed to disclose non-attributable equity investments.  For the reasons set forth
below, we dismiss Mountain Solutions's Petition.

     2.   ABC Wireless was the high bidder in Auction 22 for two licenses for Lawrence, Kansas
(B247), and Manhattan, Kansas (B275).  Mountain Solutions had been the high bidder for these licenses in the
original PCS C block auction that concluded on May 6, 1996.  However, Mountain Solutions failed to make
its second down payment for these licenses as required by section 24.711(a)(2) of the Commission's rules. 
On October 1, 1998, the Commission denied an Application for Review filed by Mountain Solutions, which
sought review of a Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Order denying Mountain Solutions's Emergency
Petition for Waiver of the Commission's down payment deadline rule.  Following the release of the
Commission's October 1998 Order, Mountain Solutions filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is currently pending.  
     3.   Mountain Solutions argues that it has standing to file its Petition against ABC Wireless's long-
form application because grant of this application will trigger the Commission's default payment rules, causing
Mountain Solutions direct economic harm.  Pursuant to section 1.2104(g)(2) of the Commission's rules,
Mountain Solutions is required to pay to the U.S. Government the difference between its winning bids and ABC
Wireless's winning bids for the licenses at issue.  Mountain Solutions argues that by bidding on licenses
formerly held by Mountain Solutions, ABC Wireless has triggered this substantial default payment, which
would not attach absent a grant of the ABC Wireless long-form application.

     4.   In its Opposition, ABC Wireless argues that Mountain Solutions has failed to demonstrate
injury sufficient to confer standing.  ABC Wireless argues that Mountain Solutions's alleged injury is not one
that is fairly traceable to ABC's conduct or qualifications as a licensee.  ABC Wireless argues that "causation,
or traceability, examines whether it is substantially probable that the challenged acts of the defendant, not of
some absent third party, will cause the particularized injury of the plaintiff."  ABC Wireless contends that
because the injury alleged by Mountain Solutions would have been caused by any winning bid on the licenses,
there is no nexus between the alleged harm to the petitioner and the qualifications of ABC Wireless. Thus,
according to ABC Wireless, Mountain Solutions's alleged injury is merely a result of the application of the
Commission's default payment rules and occurred when Mountain Solutions defaulted on the licenses.

     5.   We agree.  Pursuant to section 1.2109 of the Commission's rules, Mountain Solutions was in
default after it failed to make its second down payment.  As a result, it is subject to the Commission's default
payment provisions in section 1.2104(g)(2).  The payment for which Mountain Solutions is liable is a result
of its default, not of any action taken by ABC Wireless or a grant of licenses to ABC Wireless.  The fact that
ABC Wireless bid a certain amount to win the above-captioned licenses reflects their current market value and
does not make any injury to Mountain Solutions traceable to actions taken by either ABC Wireless or the
Commission.  

     6.   Even if we were to assume that Mountain Solutions has standing, we find no merit in Mountain
Solutions's argument that ABC Wireless has failed to demonstrate that it is eligible to hold C block licenses. 
Mountain Solutions argues that ABC Wireless has failed to disclose certain non-attributable equity investments
that may cause ABC Wireless to exceed the $500 million asset limit set forth in section 24.709(a) of the
Commission's rules.  Mountain Solutions also argues that the fact that two of ABC Wireless's three principals
constituted the control group for an entity which bid in the original C block auction does not establish that its
eligibility may be "grandfathered" for Auction 22.  ABC Wireless states in its Opposition that it is merely in
discussions with additional financial investors, some of whom may invest as non-attributable equity holders. 
We find that Mountain Solutions's argument is speculative in nature.  The fact that ABC Wireless is in
discussions for potential additional financing does not trigger a requirement for it to disclose additional assets. 
Moreover, we need not consider the issue of grandfathered eligibility because we conclude that ABC Wireless's
total assets are below $500 million and it, therefore, meets our eligibility criteria.  

     7.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309(d)(1) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 309(d)(1), and sections 0.331, 1.2108 and
24.830 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, 1.2108 and 24.830, the Petition to Deny filed by
Mountain Solutions Ltd., Inc., on June 3, 1999, IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

     
     
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              Paul D'Ari
                              Chief, Policy and Rules Branch
                              Commercial Wireless Division
                              Wireless Telecommunications Bureau