Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.


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

In re Application of            )
WISCONSIN, INC.                 )  NAL/Acct. No. 200332080022
                                )  FCC Account ID No. 0442010372
For C Block Facilities in the   )  FRN No. 0002706190
710-716 and 740-746 MHz Bands   )  


Adopted:  October 22, 2004              Released:   October   25, 

By the  Chief, Investigations  & Hearings  Division,  Enforcement 

     On September 22, 2004, the Chief, Enforcement Bureau 
released Northeast Communications of Wisconsin, Inc., Forfeiture 
Order, DA 04-3027 (EB rel. Sept. 22, 2004) (``Forfeiture 
Order'').  By this Erratum, we make the following two 
corrections: (a) the caption above replaces the caption on the 
Forfeiture Order, which inadvertently referenced an incorrect 
NAL/Acct. No.; and (b) the paragraph below replaces paragraph 5 
of the Forfeiture Order, which inadvertently contained 
superfluous editorial material:  

     5.        Turning to the instant case, we reject 
     Northeast's claim that it did not violate section 
     1.2105(c) because it was not an applicant in Auction 
     No. 44 on August 29, 2002, when the communication at 
     issue took place.1  Northeast maintains that it ceased 
     being an ``applicant,'' subject to section 1.2105(c), 
     when it failed to make its upfront payment by the May 
     30, 2002, deadline.2  Although Northeast's failure to 
     timely make its upfront payment disqualified it from 
     bidding in Auction No. 44, and suggested that WTB would 
     in due course dismiss its application, the fact remains 
     that, as of August 28 and 29, WTB had not dismissed 
     Northeast's application and it thus remained pending 
     under the rules.

When the Forfeiture Order is published in the FCC Record, it will 
contain the corrections referenced herein.

                         William H. Davenport
                         Chief, Investigations & Hearings 
                         Enforcement Bureau


1 Response at 2-7.

2 Northeast's reliance on section 1.935 of the rules to support 
its claim that it ceased being an applicant for the purposes of 
the anti-collusion rule lacks merit.  Response at 5-6. Section 
1.935 relates to agreements among mutually exclusive applicants 
to dismiss their applications and clearly is inapplicable here.  
Northeast's further reliance on Public Notice, DA 02-659, 17 FCC 
Rcd 5,140 (WTB rel. March 19, 2002) and Public Notice, DA 02-
1346, 17 FCC Rcd 10,700 (WTB rel. June 7, 2002), also is 
misplaced.  The March 19 Public Notice was issued in connection 
with Auction No. 31, not Auction No. 44, and the June 7 Public 
Notice merely identified Northeast as among those applicants that 
had failed to timely make upfront payments and were, therefore, 
ineligible to bid in Auction No. 44.  Neither public notice 
affected Northeast's status as an ``applicant'' in Auction No. 44 
for purposes of the anti-collusion rule.  We also reject 
Northeast's argument that, because it decided the term ``bidder'' 
may be substituted for the term ``applicant'' in the context of 
section 1.2105(c), and Northeast was not a bidder in Auction No. 
44 , it follows that the Commission is prevented from lawfully 
concluding that Northeast violated section 1.2105(c).  Response 
at 2-3.  Northeast's interpretation of section 1.2105(c) ignores 
the plain language of the rule.  In this regard, although section 
1.2105(c) initially referenced ``bidders,'' it was subsequently 
amended in 1994 to apply to ``applicants.''  That amendment 
occurred years before the Star and Northeast applications were 
filed.  See In the Matter of Implementation of Section 309(J) of 
the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, 9 FCC Rcd 7,684