Subject: Re: [NEXTEL-1] Re: Nussle Introduces Spectrum Accountability Act- For Flip Po...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:36:30 EDT

Marcel: yes, we shall.  Nextel is going to get what it wants unless Verizon 
Wireless, Cingular, CTIA and others raise the level of their game considerably. 
 So much money yet so little creativity.

So far, advantage to the Donahue-Powell Express. 

P. Waugh

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:33:59 -0400

See below-

[email-masked] wrote:

>  Marcel: yes, we shall.  Nextel is going to get what it wants unless
> Verizon Wireless, Cingular, CTIA and others raise the level of their
> game considerably.  So much money yet so little creativity.
>

P,   Given Nextel's past history I thought would have some type of
rebuttal to address this.......

Do you remember when  Danny Akerson (Nextel Boss), Kennard and
Christopher  "Under The Table" Wright  (FCC
Deputy General Counsel) were on the Nextwave Express that crashed?

That train was derailed going full speed ahead , there were numerous
DOA's on the scene. Danny Akerson & Kennard
played dumb and said  FCC Deputy General Counsel Christopher "Under The
Table" Wright was at the controls.
Wright said Kennard told him to drive, but he did not have License.

=============================================================================================

"Kennard answered an inquiry from Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.,assuring
him that nothing in the Nextel
agreement obligates the commissioners  to support Nextel's plan. "The
FCC did not make an exclusive deal with
Nextel, Kennard said, committing himself to neutrality on competing
offers."
"http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA3402?stt=001&text=nextwave

"WASHINGTON--Responding to a congressional investigation into the
confidential
spectrum agreement Nextel Communications Inc. signed with the government
in
August, the Department of Justice and Nextel."
http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA3368?stt=001&text=nextwave

"Who Knew What When?

WASHINGTON--To defend themselves against a volley of severe criticism
regarding the secret spectrum pact
forged with Nextel Communications Inc. in August, FCC commissioners
assert they did not agree to any deal,
even if the agency's top legal official did. It became clear last week,
however, that the commissioners were
informed of the agreement, including its general terms, before General
Counsel Christopher Wright signed it.
The sequence of events leading to the Aug. 10 agreement, which was
designed to facilitate Nextel's effort to
acquire spectrum licenses held by bankrupt NextWave Personal
Communications Inc., is of considerable concern
to lawmakers investigating the deal and to the wireless industry.
Legislators are worried about "a pattern at the
FCC of engaging in closed-door deal-making," and carriers are concerned
that one company is receiving favors
denied to others.  The who-knew-what-when exercise helps shed light on
the commission's practices."
http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA3383?stt=001&text=nextwave

"Nextel-FCC Pact Could Be Headed For Hearings

WASHINGTON--Last week's chapter in the ongoing attempt to shed light on
the pact secretly signed by the
FCC and Nextel Communications Inc. in August featured a volley of
correspondence among Congress, the
Department of Justice, Nextel, the FCC and CTIA.
http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA3470?stt=001&text=nextwave"

"Bliley Raps 'Closed-door Deal-making'

WASHINGTON--The House Commerce Committee launched an inquiry last week
into FCC General Counsel
Christopher Wright's pact with Nextel Communications Inc. over a set of
personal communications services
licenses. The committee cited "what appears to be a pattern at the FCC
of engaging in closed-door deal-making
with private parties on matters that affect public
interest."http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA3426?stt=001&text=nextwave

"Judge Questions Nextel-FCC Pact

WASHINGTON--Wait just a minute there. A bankruptcy court judge has
objected to a private pact made by FCC
general counsel Christopher Wright and Nextel Communications Inc. on
C-Block spectrum.
In the pact Wright assured Nextel he would recommend that the commission
approve the transfer of bankrupt
NextWave Telecom Inc.'s licenses to Nextel and grant the necessary
ownership waivers. These assurances have
left much of the industry--and many in the legal community--scratching
their heads about the FCC's
processes.http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA3501?stt=001&text=nextwave
"

Dingell made them all come to GOD.  It was all over then..........

We Shall See!

September 20, 1999

The Honorable William E. Kennard
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554

     Re: In re NextWave Personal Communications Inc., et al., Chapter 11

     Case No. 98 B 21529 (Jointly Administered) (ASH)

Dear Chairman Kennard:

I am writing with respect to your recent letter to Thomas E. Wheeler, of
the Cellular Telecommunications
Industry
Association, defending the activities of the FCC staff with regard to
the PCS licenses that are the subject of the
above-referenced bankruptcy proceeding.

It is my understanding that Christopher J. Wright, FCC General Counsel,
and Raymond Fisher, Associate
Attorney
General, sent a letter on August 10, 1999 to Counsel for Nextel
Communications, Inc. In that letter, Mr. Wright
expressly committed his support, as well as the support of "relevant"
FCC staff, to Nextel's Term Sheet and
Joint Plan
of Reorganization concerning NextWave's PCS licenses. Specifically, the
letter stated:

          This letter confirms that the undersigned, Christopher J.
Wright, General Counsel of the
          [FCC] . . . and the relevant staff of the FCC will recommend
to the FCC that it accept and
          agree to support the resolution of the NextWave Cases as
proposed in the Term Sheet. . . .
          You and Nextel are authorized to disclose the existence and
substance of this letter and the
          Term Sheet in connection with any efforts to raise necessary
funding, to propose or
          implement a plan of reorganization consistent with that
described in the Term Sheet . . .

As you are aware, NextWave's plan of reorganization was filed on July
27, 1999 and is currently under
consideration by creditors and by the Bankruptcy Court for purposes of
confirmation. Nextel is not a party in interest in the
bankruptcy proceeding and, therefore, has no standing to file a plan of
reorganization.

Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Commission has
several options at its disposal with
respect to licensees. It can renew a license (with or without
conditions); it can deny an application to renew; or
it can  revoke a license. In each case, the Act imposes specific
procedures on the FCC that are designed to protect the
public at large, and the licensee in particular. With respect to
NextWave, the Commission has previously
determined that the company is qualified to hold licenses, and on that
basis issued NextWave 95 licenses.

The FCC's actions with respect to the Nextel/NextWave transaction
represent a radical departure from
Commission  policy and precedent. This departure has been made without
the benefit of public participation or a public
articulation of  a change in policies. In Reuters Limited v. FCC, 781
F.2d 946 (1986), the Court warned that:

          It is elementary that an agency must adhere to its own rules
and regulations. Ad hoc
          departures from those rules, even to achieve laudable aims,
cannot be sanctioned, for therein
          lies the seeds of destruction of the orderliness and
predictability which are the hallmarks of
          lawful administrative action.

The Court warned further that an agency is not permitted "to deviate
from its rules in order to achieve what it
deems to be justice in the individual case."

Even if it were appropriate for the Commission to act as a partisan, the
manner in which it is conducting itself
vis-à-vis Nextel's takeover bid for NextWave is inappropriate for
several reasons. First, the Commission has not
conducted any proceeding that concludes that NextWave, the incumbent
licensee, is unfit or unqualified to hold its licenses. As
noted above, the Commission is bound by specific statutory requirements
that must be met before it is permitted to
revoke a
license.

Second, the Commission is engaged in an effort to transfer licenses
without having been presented with a written

application, or having to provide an opportunity for public
participation. Section 310(d) of the Act is clear:

          No construction permit or station license, or any rights
thereunder, shall be transferred,
          assigned, or disposed of in any manner, voluntarily or
involuntarily, directly or indirectly, or by
          transfer of control of any corporation holding such permit or
license, to any person except
          upon application to the Commission and upon findings by the
Commission that the public
          interest, convenience, and necessity will be served thereby.
(emphasis added)

The Commission is expressly prohibited from considering "whether the
public interest, convenience, and
necessity might be served by the transfer, assignment, or disposal of
the . . . license to a person other than the proposed
transferee or assignee." Mr. Wright’s actions appear to conflict with
these statutory provisions.

I also must note that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to
support a takeover bid of a C-Block
licensee by a company that does not comply with the Commission's
eligibility criteria for C-Block licensees. Section 24.709 of
the Commission's rules contain the specific criteria for C-Block
eligibility. Nextel does not appear to qualify to hold
C-block licenses as its assets and revenues exceed substantially the
amounts that these eligibility criteria permit. Mr.
Wright’s letter appears to indicate his support for creating an
exemption for compliance with its eligibility criteria
specifically for Nextel. Such an exemption is not available for other
C-block licensees, despite the precarious financial
condition of many of the remaining C-block licensees. To the extent that
the Commission determines, through a public
proceeding, that an exemption should be created, such an exemption
should be made available to all C-block licensees,
including NextWave.

Over the last twenty years, the Commission has scrupulously attempted to
remain neutral in the face of takeover
battles for its licensees. In so doing, the Commission has held that the
procedures outlined in the Act should be
usedneither as a sword nor as a shield. It is unprecedented, therefore,
that the Commission would not only take sides
in a hostile takeover effort, but act as an organizer of such an effort,
aiding and abetting one company in an effort to
acquire another company.

For the above reasons, I am extremely troubled by Mr. Wright’s conduct
and I ask that you review this matter
fully and provide me with your views.

Please instruct the Office of General Counsel to insert a copy of this
letter, as may be appropriate under
Commission rules, in the official record of any relevant proceeding.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL
RANKING MEMBER

cc: The Honorable Adlai S. Hardin, Jr.
The Honorable Tom Bliley
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde
The Honorable John Conyers
The Honorable W.J. "Billy" Tauzin
The Honorable Edward J. Markey
Commissioner Susan Ness
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth
Commissioner Michael Powell
Commissioner Gloria Tristani

Deja-Vu?????