47 CFR 22.940 - Criteria for comparative cellular renewal proceedings.
This section sets forth criteria to be used in comparative cellular renewal proceedings. The ultimate issue in comparative renewal proceedings will be to determine, in light of the evidence adduced in the proceeding, what disposition of the applications would best serve the public interest, convenience and necessity.
(a) Renewal expectancies. The most important comparative factor to be considered in a comparative cellular renewal proceeding is a major preference, commonly referred to as a “renewal expectancy.”
(1) The cellular renewal applicant involved in a comparative renewal proceeding will receive a renewal expectancy, if its past record for the relevant license period demonstrates that:
(i) The renewal applicant has provided “substantial” service during its past license term. “Substantial” service is defined as service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal; and
(ii) The renewal applicant has substantially compiled with applicable FCC rules, policies and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
(2) In order to establish its right to a renewal expectancy, a cellular renewal applicant involved in a comparative renewal proceeding must submit a showing explaining why it should receive a renewal expectancy. At a minimum, this showing must include.
(i) A description of its current service in terms of geographic coverage and population served, as well as the system's ability to accommodate the needs of roamers;
(ii) An explanation of its record of expansion, including a timetable of the construction of new cell sites to meet changes in demand for cellular service;
(iii) A description of its investments in its cellular system; and
(iv) Copies of all FCC orders finding the licensee to have violated the Communications Act or any FCC rule or policy; and a list of any pending proceedings that relate to any matter described in this paragraph.
(3) In making its showing of entitlement to a renewal expectancy, a renewal applicant may claim credit for any system modification applications that were pending on the date it filed its renewal application. Such credit will not be allowed if the modification application is dismissed or denied.
(b) Additional comparative issues. The following additional comparative issues will be included in comparative cellular renewal proceedings, if a full comparative hearing is conducted pursuant to § 22.935(c).
(1) To determine on a comparative basis the geographic areas and population that each applicant proposes to serve; to determine and compare the relative demand for the services proposed in said areas; and to determine and compare the ability of each applicant's cellular system to accommodate the anticipated demand for both local and roamer service;
(2) To determine on a comparative basis each applicant's proposal for expanding its system capacity in a coordinated manner in order to meet anticipated increasing demand for both local and roamer service;
(3) To determine on a comparative basis the nature and extent of the service proposed by each applicant, including each applicant's proposed rates, charges, maintenance, personnel, practices, classifications, regulations and facilities (including switching capabilities); and
(4) To determine on a comparative basis each applicant's past performance in the cellular industry or another business of comparable type and size.
(c) Additional showings for competing applications. With respect to evidence introduced pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section, any applicant filing a competing application against a cellular renewal application (competing applicant) who claims a preference for offering any service not currently offered by the incumbent licensee must demonstrate that there is demand for that new service and also present a business plan showing that the competing applicant can operate the system economically. Any competing applicant who proposes to replace analog technology with digital technology will receive no credit for its proposal unless it submits a business plan showing how it will operate its system economically and how it will provide more comprehensive service than does the incumbent licensee with existing and implemented cellular technology.