********************************************************    
                                         NOTICE
    ********************************************************
                                
                This document was converted from
           WordPerfect or Word 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 the Matter of

AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc.
American Porable Telecommunications, Inc 
Ameritech Wireless Communications, Inc.
Bell South Personal Communications, Inc.
Centennial Cellular Corp.
Communications International Corp.
Cox Cable Communications, Inc.
GCI Communications Corp.
GTE Macro Communications Corp.
PCS PRIMECO, L.P.
Pacific Telesis Mobile Services
PhillieCo., L.P.
Poka Lambro Telephone Cooperative, Inc
Powertel PCS Partners, L.P.
South Seas Satellite CommunicationsCorp.
Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc.
Western PCS Corporation
WirelessCo. L.P.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)









GEN Docket No. 90-314


Authorizations for A and B Block
Broadband PCS Frequencies


                             ORDER

   Adopted:  February 29, 2000          Released: March 1, 2000

By the Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau:  
                                
1.     On December 11, 1995, Advanced Cordless Technologies, Inc. ("ACT") filed a Petition to
Rescind or Suspend Authorizations ("Petition") for the above-captioned applications of the A and B Block
auction winning bidders, pending Commission action on the Sixth Circuit's remand in the case of
Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC.  For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the Petition.
                                
                         I.  Background
  II 
   2.   The long form applications of the A and B Block winning bidders were accepted for filing
on April 12, 1995, and granted by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("Bureau") on June 23,
1995.  Following the filing of ACT's Petition, eight oppositions were filed: one each by Western PCS
Corp., PCS PrimeCo, L.P., AT&T Wireless PCS, GTE Mobilnet Inc., American Portable
Telecommunications, Inc., Communications International Corp., individually; one by Pacific Telesis
Mobile Services and Pacific Bell Mobile Services jointly; and one by Sprint Telecommunications Venture,
WirelessCo, L.P. and PillieCo, L.P., jointly.  ACT is an unsuccessful applicant for a broadband PCS
pioneer's preference, that, along with several others, filed for judicial review of the Commission's decision
denying it a pioneer's preference. ACT lost its appeal for failure to timely file a petition for reconsideration
of the Commission's denial of the preference.  ACT did not file an application to participate in the A and
B Block auction. 

                        II.  DISCUSSION
                                
    3.    We dismiss ACT's Petition because it has failed to demonstrate standing to challenge the A
and B Block applicants.  Only a party in interest has standing to protest an application before the
Commission.  To establish party in interest standing, petitioners must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate
that grant of the subject application would cause them to suffer a direct injury.  In addition, petitioners must
demonstrate a causal link "between the claimed injury and the challenged action."  To demonstrate a causal
link, petitioners must establish that: (1) "these injuries fairly can be traced to the challenged action;" and (2)
"the injury would be prevented or redressed by the relief requested."

    4.    We find the facts alleged by ACT to be insufficient to confer standing.  ACT's claim to an
interest in all of the A and B Block licenses is based on its previously pending appeal of the Commission's
denial of its pioneer's preference requests.  ACT alleges it would be harmed by grant of the licenses at issue
to the auction winners because it could ultimately be awarded those licenses.  However, these previously
pending claims, do not vest ACT with standing to challenge the applications of the A and B Block auction
winners.  ACT did not participate in this auction and, therefore has no claim to the licenses.  Thus, a grant of
the licenses to the A and B Block PCS auction winners would cause ACT no direct injury.  Moreover, the
denial of such a grant would not redress any injury to ACT because such a denial would merely return the
licenses to the Commission.  Thus, ACT lacks standing to file its Petition. 

5.   We also find that ACT's Petition is moot.  ACT has requested that the 99 licenses in the A
and B block PCS auction be suspended or rescinded until such time as the Commission takes action on the
Sixth Circuit's remand in the case of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC.  Since the filing of the Petition,
however, the Commission has acted on remand by upholding the A and B Block license grants from which
ACT claims relief.  Specifically, the Commission determined that the elimination of the Cellular/PCS cross
ownership restrictions on auction eligibility, the subject of the Sixth Circuit's remand, would only be applied
prospectively, to future PCS auctions.  Accordingly, ACT's Petition is now moot.

                       V. ORDERING CLAUSE
6. Accordingly, pursuant to pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 154(j), and Sections 24.830(a)(3) and 0.331 of the Commission's
Rules, 47 C.F.R. 24.830(a)(3) and 0.331, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition filed by ACT against the A
         and B block applications IS HEREBY DISMISSED.
                                
   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                                
              Paul D'Ari
    Chief, Policy and Rules Branch
     Commercial Wireless Division
  Wireless Telecommunications Bureau