Attachment Grant PN

Grant PN

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER submitted by FCC

Grant PN FCC 07-185

2007-10-26

This document pretains to ITC-T/C-20070606-00216 for Transfer of Control on a International Telecommunications filing.

IBFS_ITCTC2007060600216_600751

                                     Federal Communications Commission                                FCC 07-185


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


In the Matter of                                           )
                                                           )
Applications of ALLTEL Corporation, Transferor,            )
and Atlantis Holdings LLC, Transferee                      )       WT Docket No. 07-128
                                                           )
For Consent To Transfer Control of Licenses,               )
Leases and Authorizations                                  )


                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: October 26, 2007                                                            Released: October 26, 2007

By the Commission: Commissioner Copps approving in part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement;
Commissioner Adelstein approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement; and Commissioner
McDowell issuing a statement.

I.          INTRODUCTION
         1. In this Order, we consider applications (“Applications”) filed by ALLTEL Corporation
(“ALLTEL”) and Atlantis Holdings LLC (“Atlantis,” and together with ALLTEL, the “Applicants”),1
pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.2 In these
Applications, ALLTEL and Atlantis seek consent to the transfer of control of the wireless licenses,
leases,3 and domestic and international Section 214 authorizations held by subsidiaries of ALLTEL to
Atlantis.4 The Applicants also seek to transfer control of ALLTEL’s non-controlling, general partnership
interests in six Commission licensees to Atlantis. As discussed below, we conclude, pursuant to our
review under Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
“Communications Act”), that approval of these applications as conditioned will serve the public interest,
convenience, and necessity.
        2. ALLTEL, which is a Delaware corporation publicly traded on the New York Stock
Exchange,5 provides, through its subsidiaries, wireless voice and data communications services to more
than 12 million customers in mid-sized cities and rural areas in 36 states throughout much of the
Southeast and portions of the Northeast, Southwest and upper Midwest.6 It provides services to its
subscribers on 850 MHz band cellular and 1900 MHz band PCS licenses using Code Division Multiple
1
    See Attachment.
2
    47 U.S.C. §§ 214, 310(d).
3
 The wireless licenses held by ALLTEL include licenses for the Part 22 Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Part
22 Paging and Radiotelephone Service, the Part 24 Personal Communications Service, the Part 27 Lower 700 MHz
Service, the Part 90 Industrial/Business Pool Service, the Part 90 Private Carrier Paging Service, the Part 90
Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the Part 101 Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service, the Part
101 39 GHz Auctioned Service, the Part 101 Local Television Transmission Service, and the Part 101 Local
Multipoint Distribution Service.
4
    See Attachment.
5
    Lead Application, File No. 0003040113, Amended Exhibit 1, at 1 (filed June 15, 2007) (“Application, Exhibit 1”).
6
    Id. at 1-2.


                                    Federal Communications Commission                                    FCC 07-185


Access (“CDMA”) technology.7 ALLTEL also has deployed a Global System for Mobile
Communications (“GSM”) network.8
         3. On May 20, 2007, ALLTEL entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Atlantis
under which all of ALLTEL’s outstanding stock would be canceled and the current ALLTEL
shareholders would receive cash for their canceled shares.9 The transfer of control would take place as a
result of a proposed merger whereby Atlantis Merger Sub, Inc. (“Atlantis Merger Sub”), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Atlantis, would be merged into ALLTEL.10 The separate corporate existence of Atlantis
Merger Sub would cease, and ALLTEL would continue as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Atlantis.11 Atlantis is a holding company for certain investment funds ultimately controlled
by the principals of TPG Capital, L.P. (“TPG”) and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman
Sachs”).12 The Applicants state that TPG and Goldman Sachs each would have negative control of
Atlantis and, upon consummation of the transaction, ALLTEL, because TPG and Goldman Sachs each
control one of Atlantis’s two managing members, TPG Atlantis V-A, L.P. and GS Capital Partners VI
Parallel, L.P. (collectively, “Managing Members”), respectively.13 The Applicants further assert that the
Managing Members, which would be responsible for the management, operation, and control of the
business and affairs of Atlantis, would also have negative control of ALLTEL by virtue of each
company’s negative control of Atlantis’s board of directors.14 In addition to the Managing Members,
other investment funds ultimately controlled by the principals of TPG and/or Goldman Sachs would hold
non-controlling interests in Atlantis.15
        4. The Applications were placed on public notice on June 25, 2007.16 Although no petitions to
deny were filed against the proposed transaction, T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) filed comments on
July 26, 2007,17 in which it urges the Commission to inquire about ALLTEL’s intentions regarding the
continued operation of ALLTEL’s GSM network and seek assurances that it would continue to provide a
seamless experience for T-Mobile customers roaming on ALLTEL’s GSM network.18 Further, T-Mobile
requests that the Commission “require that Atlantis commit to maintaining ALLTEL’s existing GSM 850
and GSM 1900 band network coverage and honoring the roaming agreements that ALLTEL has entered


7
    Id. at 2.
8
 Id. ALLTEL states that it is also deploying third generation technologies, such as CDMA2000, 1xRTT and EV-
DO to provide enhanced wireless data services. Id.
9
    Id. at 3.
10
     Id.
11
     Id.
12
     Id. at 2.
13
     Id. at 3 & nn.5, 6.
14
     Id. at 3.
15
   Id. at 4. The Applicants state that, prior to the consummation of this transaction, TPG and Goldman Sachs intend
to syndicate certain of their respective equity investments in Atlantis to additional limited partners or co-investors.
As part of this syndication, TPG and Goldman Sachs state that they may create additional investment funds and that
these funds may hold a passive equity interest of 10% or greater in Atlantis. Id. at 4-5. The applicants will file an
updated FCC Form 602 at the time of consummation to report the final ownership structure of ALLTEL. Id. at 5.
16
 ALLTEL Corporation and Atlantis Holdings LLC Seek FCC Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses and
Authorizations, WT Docket No. 07-128, Public Notice, DA 07-2794 (rel. June 25, 2007).
17
     Comments of T-Mobile USA, Inc. (filed July 26, 2007) (“T-Mobile Comments”).
18
     Id. at 4-5.


                                                           2


                                    Federal Communications Commission                                  FCC 07-185


with other wireless carriers.”19 T-Mobile argues that ALLTEL’s GSM network is “essential to preserving
competition among the many carriers, including T-Mobile,”20 because they rely on that network to
provide seamless and affordable roaming coverage necessary to retain and attract subscribers.21 ALLTEL
and Atlantis filed a Joint Reply, dated August 6, 2007, in which the Applicants affirm their intention to
honor ALLTEL’s existing roaming agreements.22 Atlantis states that it “values Alltel’s relationship with
its roaming customers and will assume the obligations associated with these agreements when it acquires
control of Alltel upon consummation of the [t]ransaction.”23 Moreover, the Applicants state that “Atlantis
is committed to continuing ALLTEL’s longstanding commitment to entering voluntary, market-based
roaming agreements with other carriers.”24
         5. In addition to ALLTEL’s assurances to honor the roaming agreements, we note that the
provision of roaming is subject to the requirements of Section 201, 202, and 208 of the Communications
Act.25 In a recent order, the Commission determined that when “a reasonable request is made by a
technologically compatible [commercial mobile radio service (“CMRS”)] carrier, a host CMRS carrier
must provide automatic roaming to the requesting carrier outside of the requesting carrier’s home
market”26 on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions.27 The Commission also said that if
a carrier makes a reasonable request for automatic roaming, “then the would-be host carrier cannot refuse
to negotiate an automatic roaming agreement with the requesting carrier.”28 Additionally, we find that the
roaming issues raised by T-Mobile do not raise substantial and material questions of fact regarding the
proposed transaction before us.
        6. We find that the proposed transaction would not result in anticompetitive effects upon the
provision of roaming services, because it will not reduce the number of wireless service providers in the
applicable markets. Consumers will not see a reduction in the options they have for obtaining service in
these markets. And the ability of wireless providers to enter into roaming agreements with ALLTEL
would be the same post-merger as it was before the merger. Thus, the proposed transaction does not
create merger-specific competitive harm with regard to roaming services. Based on the foregoing, we
decline to place any specific roaming conditions on our approval of the proposed transaction.
       7. Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(“Communications Act),29 we must determine whether the Applicants have demonstrated that the
proposed transfer of control of ALLTEL’s licenses and authorizations would serve the public interest,

19
     Id. at 5.
20
     Id. at 4
21
     See id. at 2-3
22
     Joint Reply Comments of ALLTEL Corporation and Atlantis Holdings LLC (filed Aug. 6, 2007) (“Joint Reply”).
23
     Id. at 3
24
     Id. at 2-3.
25
  Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-265,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-143, at 2 ¶ 1 (“Roaming Report and
Order”).
26
  Id. at 2 ¶ 2. See also id. at 15 ¶ 33. We also note that it is a long-standing principle of the Commission not to
dictate licensees’ technology choices. See, e.g., Applications of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. and Cingular
Wireless Corporation, WT Docket No. 04-70, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 21522, 21608 ¶ 227
(2004); Spectrum Policy Task Force, ET Docket No. 02-135, Report, at 14 (rel. Nov. 2002).
27
     Roaming Report and Order at 10 ¶ 23.
28
     Id. at 12 ¶ 28.
29
     47 U.S.C. §§ 214, 310(d).


                                                         3


                                       Federal Communications Commission                             FCC 07-185


convenience, and necessity. The Applicants state that the proposed transaction would serve the public
interest, because ALLTEL would be able to improve service to consumers, especially in unserved and
underserved rural areas; invest in the deployment of advanced services; and expand its network through
the purchase of additional spectrum.30 Specifically, the Applicants state that the proposed transaction will
provide Alltel with access to a stable source of capital and will prevent the company from being subject to
quarter-to-quarter market fluctuations, allowing Alltel to acquire additional spectrum and make
significant, capital intensive, infrastructure investments that will enable the rapid deployment of advanced
services to rural consumers.31 Further, there have been no questions raised with regard to the basic
qualifications of Atlantis or ALLTEL, and we find no evidence that the transferee lacks the requisite
financial, legal, technical, or other basic qualifications to be a licensee under the Communications Act.
Thus, we find that Atlantis possesses the requisite basic qualifications to be the transferee of the licenses
and authorizations currently held by ALLTEL. We also find that, because Atlantis does not provide
mobile telephony service or hold licenses,32 the proposed transaction would not have an adverse effect on
competition in the mobile telephony market.
         8. Although the proposed transaction would not adversely affect competition, the transaction
raises issues regarding universal service and E911. On May 1, 2007, the Federal-State Joint Board on
Universal Service (Joint Board) recommended that “the Commission take immediate action to rein in the
explosive growth in high-cost universal service support disbursements.”33 Specifically, the Joint Board
recommended that the Commission impose an interim, emergency cap on the amount of high-cost support
that competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) may receive for each state based on the
average level of competitive ETC support distributed in that state in 2006.34 The Joint Board based its
recommendation on its assessment that, “without immediate action to restrain growth in competitive ETC
funding, the federal universal service fund is in dire jeopardy of becoming unsustainable.”35 In 2006, the
universal service fund provided approximately $4.1 billion per year in high-cost support.36 In contrast, in
2001, high-cost universal service support totaled approximately $2.6 billion.37 In recent years, this
growth has been due to increased support provided to competitive ETCs, which receive high-cost support
based on the per-line support that the incumbent LECs receive, rather than on the competitive ETCs’ own
costs. While support to incumbent LECs has been flat, or has even declined since 2003,38 competitive

30
     See Application, Exhibit 1, at 6-8.
31
     See id. at 1, 6-8.
32
     See id. at 8-10.
33
  See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45,
Recommended Decision, 22 FCC Rcd 8998, 8998 ¶ 1 (Fed.-State Jt. Bd. 2007) (“Recommended Decision”). On
May 14, 2007, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking comment on the Joint Board’s
recommendation. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 9705 (2007) (“Notice”).
34
     Recommended Decision, 22 FCC Rcd at 8998 ¶ 1.
35
     Id. at ¶ 4.
36
   Universal Service Administrative Company 2006 Annual Report, 39 (2006), available at
http://www.usac.org/_res/documents/about/pdf/usac-annual-report-2006.pdf (“USAC 2006 Annual Report”).
37
  See Universal Service Monitoring Report, CC Docket No. 98-202, Prepared by the Federal and State Staff for the
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service in CC Docket No. 96-45, Table 3.2 (2006) (“Universal Service
Monitoring Report”).
38
   Incumbent LECs received $3.129 billion in high-cost support in 2003; $3.153 billion in 2004; $3.186 billion in
2005; and $3.116 billion in 2006. Universal Service Monitoring Report at Table 3.2 (for 2003, 2004, and 2005
data); USAC 2006 Annual Report at 41 (for 2006 data). In 2001, much of the growth in high-cost support was
attributable to removing implicit subsidies from access charges and the inclusion of these amounts in explicit
                                                                                                       (continued….)
                                                         4


                                     Federal Communications Commission                              FCC 07-185


ETC support, in the six years from 2001 through 2006, has grown from under $17 million to $980 million
– an average annual growth rate of over 100 percent.39
         9. Although the Commission has not yet adopted the Joint Board’s recommendation, this
transaction implicates the Joint Board’s recommendation. ALLTEL is currently the largest beneficiary of
competitive ETC funding and accounts for approximately 29 percent of all high cost fund payments to
ETCs.40 Given ALLTEL’s significant role in the expansion of the high cost fund through ALLTEL’s
receipt of competitive ETC funding, which forms the basis of the Joint Board’s concern, we find that it is
in the public interest to immediately address ALLTEL’s continued receipt of competitive ETC funding in
the context of this transaction. Specifically, as recommended by the Joint Board, we impose an interim
cap on high-cost, competitive ETC support provided to ALLTEL as a condition of this transaction, which
will apply until fundamental comprehensive reforms are adopted to address issues related to the
distribution of support and to ensure that the universal service fund will be sustainable for future years.
As a result of this condition, ALLTEL will be capped at the level of support that it received as a
competitive ETC for 2007, measured as of the end of June 2007 on an annualized basis.
         10. We also find that it is in the public interest to adopt a limited exception from the application
of the interim cap condition to ALLTEL. Specifically, ALLTEL will not be subject to the interim cap
condition to the extent ALLTEL (1) files cost data showing its own per-line costs of providing service in
a supported service area upon which its high cost universal service support would be based, and (2)
demonstrates that its network is in compliance with section 20.18(h) of the Commission’s rules specifying
E911 location accuracy as measured at a geographical level defined by the coverage area of each Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP).41
          11. Because a competitive ETC’s per-line support is currently based solely on the per-line
support received by the incumbent LEC, rather than its own network investments in an area, the
competitive ETC has little incentive to invest in, or expand, its own facilities in areas with low population
densities, which is inconsistent with the Act’s universal service goal.42 However, to the extent ALLTEL
files its own per-line costs, it would have an incentive to invest in areas with low population densities,
which would serve our universal service goals. Accordingly, we find that the public interest would be
served by allowing ALLTEL to receive high cost support in excess of annualized, June 2007 levels to the
(Continued from previous page)
universal service mechanisms adopted in the CALLS Order and the MAG Plan Order. See Access Charge Reform,
Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers; Low-Volume Long-Distance Users; Federal-State
Joint Board on Universal Service, Sixth Report and Order in CC Docket Nos. 96-262 and 94-1, Report and Order in
CC Docket No. 99-249, Eleventh Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-45, 15 FCC Rcd 12962 (2000) (“CALLS
Order”); Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation of Interstate Services of Non-Price Cap Incumbent
Local Exchange Carriers and Interexchange Carriers; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Access
Charge Reform for Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Subject to Rate-of-Return Regulation; Prescribing the
Authorized Rate of Return From Interstate Services of Local Exchange Carriers, Second Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 00-256, Fifteenth Report and Order in CC Docket No.
96-45, and Report and Order in CC Docket Nos. 98-77 and 98-166, 16 FCC Rcd 19613 (2001) (“MAG Plan
Order”), recon. pending.
39
     Universal Service Monitoring Report, at Table 3.2; USAC 2006 Annual Report at 41.
40
  Kevin W. Caves and Jeffrey A. Eisenach, The Effects of Providing Universal Service Subsidies to Wireless
Carriers, attached to Ex Parte Letter, from Jeffrey A. Eisenach, Chairman, Criterion Economics, LLC, to Marlene
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket Nos. 96-45 and 05-337, at 18-19 (filed Jun.
13, 2007) (analyzing year 2006 data).
41
  The Commission has determined that compliance with its E911 standards is appropriately measured at a
geographical level defined by the coverage area of a PSAP. FCC Clarifies Geographic Area Over Which Wireless
Carriers Must Meet Enhanced 911 Location Accuracy Requirements, Press Release (Sept. 11, 2007) (“E911 Press
Release”), available at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276577A1.doc.
42
     See 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(3).


                                                         5


                                        Federal Communications Commission                            FCC 07-185


extent such support is based on ALLTEL’s actual costs, and to the extent ALLTEL also meets our E911
standards as described below. ALLTEL must file its cost data with the Commission or the relevant state
commission – whichever approves, or subsequently approves, its ETC designation – on an annual basis
and line-count data on a quarterly basis. ALLTEL may update its cost data on a quarterly basis, as do
rural incumbents today.43 Only if the cost data is approved by the relevant state commission or the
Commission may ALLTEL then file the cost data submission with the Universal Service Administrative
Company (USAC); ALLTEL's high cost universal service support would then be determined by USAC
by applying the same benchmarks that are applied to an incumbent LEC’s costs to determine its support.44
         12. Regarding E911, the Commission has found that “measuring and testing location accuracy
over geographic areas larger than PSAP service areas appears to be directly contrary to the interests of
public safety and homeland security.”45 Moreover, a PSAP that requests Phase II service should be able
to expect location information from carriers that meets the Commission’s accuracy requirements within
the PSAP’s service area.46 Where such information is not available, emergency response can be delayed
or rendered impossible until another source of information is provided.47 Accordingly, the Commission
has determined that compliance with its E911 standards is appropriately measured at a geographical level
defined by the coverage area of a PSAP.48 Although the Commission has determined that, as a general
matter, full compliance with accuracy as measured at the PSAP-level must be met no later than
September 11, 2012,49 we find it appropriate to condition ALLTEL’s receipt of high cost funds in excess
of annualized, June 2007 levels on a showing of current PSAP-level compliance for those PSAPs in their
study area that are capable of receiving E911 Phase II location data.50 The obligations of competitive
ETCs include the obligation to facilitate connectivity in emergency situations.51 Thus, to the extent
ALLTEL wishes to receive even more high cost universal service funding than it did on an annualized,
June 2007 basis, we find the public interest would be served by ALLTEL meeting our E911 standards
immediately, rather than in 2012.
         13. In conclusion, based on the record before us, we find that the Applicants have demonstrated
that the proposed transaction would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity; that T-Mobile’s


43
     See 47 C.F.R. §§ 36.611, 36.612.
44
  For example, in the case of a competitive ETC providing service in a non-rural study area, a cost per line would
be developed, which would be compared to the benchmark threshold for support calculated by the High-Cost Proxy
Model. For competitive ETCs providing service to rural study areas, a cost per line would be developed for each
competitive ETC for each incumbent study area that it serves. Support could be determined by comparing the
competitive ETC’s cost per loop incurred to provide the supported services to the national average cost per loop
developed by the National Exchange Carriers Association (NECA) pursuant to section 36.613 of the Commission’s
rules, as adjusted to accommodate the cap on incumbent high-cost loop support.
45
  Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements; Revision of the Commission’ s Rules to Ensure Compatibility
with enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-
International, Inc. Request for Declaratory Ruling; 911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, PS Docket
No. 07-114, CC Docket No. 94-102, WC Docket No. 05-196, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 10609,
10611 ¶ 5 (2007).
46
     Id. at 10612 ¶ 5.
47
     Id.
48
     E911 Press Release.
49
     Id.
50
     Id. at 2.
51
     See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 54.202(a)(2).


                                                        6


                                Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 07-185


concerns regarding roaming have been sufficiently addressed; and that granting consent to the proposed
transfer of control would further the public interest, subject to the conditions discussed above.
        14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 214, 309, and 310(d) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 214, 309, 310(d), the above-referenced
applications for the transfer of control of licenses, leases, and authorizations from ALLTEL Corporation
to Atlantis Holdings LLC are GRANTED, to the extent specified in this Memorandum Opinion and Order
and subject to the conditions specified herein.

                                                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




                                                Marlene H. Dortch
                                                Secretary




                                                   7


                                      Federal Communications Commission                              FCC 07-185


                                                  ATTACHMENT


I.         SECTION 310(d) APPLICATIONS

           Applications to transfer control of licenses

File No.            Licensee                                                                        Lead Call Sign

000304011352        ALLTEL Communications, Inc.                                                     KNKA257
0003040189          ALLTEL Cellular Assoc. of Arkansas L.P.                                         KNKA385
0003040208          ALLTEL Central Arkansas Cellular L.P.                                           KNKN502
0003040230          ALLTEL Communications of Arkansas RSA #12 Cellular Limited                      KNKN968
                    Partnership
0003040472          ALLTEL Communications of La Crosse Limited Partnership                          KNKA734
0003040484          ALLTEL Communications of Michigan RSA #4 Inc.                                   KNKN771
0003040496          ALLTEL Communications of Michigan RSA #6 Cellular LP                            KNKQ302
0003040826          ALLTEL Communications of Michigan RSAs, Inc.                                    KNKN698
0003040838          ALLTEL Communications of Mississippi RSA #2 Inc.                                KNKN623
0003040852          ALLTEL Communications of Mississippi RSA #6 Inc.                                KNKN559
0003040871          ALLTEL Communications of Mississippi RSA #7 Inc.                                KNKN619
0003040887          ALLTEL Communications of Nebraska, Inc.                                         KNKA295
0003059679          ALLTEL Communications Company of New Mexico, Inc.                               KNKN216
0003041171          ALLTEL Communications of North Arkansas Cellular Limited                        KNKN597
                    Partnership
0003041205          ALLTEL Communications of North Carolina Limited Partnership                     KNKA291
0003041223          ALLTEL Communications of North Louisiana Cellular Limited                       KNKA380
                    Partnership
0003041349          ALLTEL Communications of Ohio No. 3, Inc.                                       KNKN897
0003041371          ALLTEL Communications of Pine Bluff LLC                                         KNKA681
0003041375          ALLTEL Communications of Saginaw MSA LP                                         KNKA417
0003041428          ALLTEL Communications of Southern Michigan Cellular LP                          KNKA271
0003041443          ALLTEL Communications of Southwest Arkansas Cellular Limited                    KNKA567
                    Partnership
0003041448          ALLTEL Communications of Texas Limited Partnership                              KNKA422
0003041454          ALLTEL Communications of the Southwest Limited Partnership                      KNKA303
0003041469          ALLTEL Communications of Virginia No. 1, Inc.                                   KNKA511
0003041473          ALLTEL Communications of Virginia, Inc.                                         KNKA500
0003041530          ALLTEL Mobile of Louisiana, LLC                                                 KNKA765
0003041998          ALLTEL Newco LLC                                                                KNKA369
0003042016          ALLTEL Northern Arkansas RSA LTD Partnership                                    KNKQ363
0003042027          ALLTEL Ohio Limited Partnership                                                 KNKA248


52
     ULS File No. 0003040113 was designated the lead application for the wireless radio services.


                                                           8


                           Federal Communications Commission                   FCC 07-185


File No.     Licensee                                                         Lead Call Sign

0003042047   ALLTEL Telelink, Inc.                                            WLT651
0003042040   ALLTEL Wireless Holding, LLC                                     KNKA227
0003049169   ALLTEL Wireless Holdings LLC                                     WPGU712
0003042077   ALLTEL Wireless of Alexandria, LLC                               KNKA588
0003042085   ALLTEL Wireless of Michigan RSA #1&2, Inc.                       KNKN898
0003042086   ALLTEL Wireless of Mississippi RSA #5, LLC                       KNKQ448
0003042094   ALLTEL Wireless of North Louisiana, LLC                          KNKN688
0003042098   ALLTEL Wireless of Wisconsin RSA #3, LLC                         KNKN360
0003042103   Appleton Oshkosh Neenah MSA LP                                   KNKA425
0003042150   Arkansas RSA #2 (Searcy County) Cellular Limited Partnership     KNKQ404
0003042159   Cellular Mobile Systems of Michigan RSA #7 LP d/b/a ALLTEL       KNKQ319
0003042185   Celutel of Biloxi, Inc. d/b/a ALLTEL                             KNKA782
0003042201   Central Florida Cellular Telephone Company, Inc.                 KNKA715
0003042209   Charleston/North Charleston MSA Limited Partnership DBA ALLTEL   KNKA299
             Communications, Inc.
0003042219   Eau Claire Cellular Telephone Limited Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL   KNKA673
0003042249   Fayetteville MSA Limited Partnership dba ALLTEL                  KNKA535
0003042271   Georgia RSA #8 Partnership dba ALLTEL                            KNKN899
0003042367   Great Western Cellular Holdings, L.L.C.                          WPSJ612
0003042378   ID Holding, LLC                                                  KNKN306
0003042394   Jackson Cellular Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a ALLTEL            KNKA799
0003042400   Las Cruces Cellular Telephone Company                            KNKA605
0003042412   Michigan RSA #9 Limited Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL                 KNKQ303
0003042476   Midwest Wireless Communications L.L.C.                           KNKA740
0003042554   Midwest Wireless Iowa L.L.C.                                     KNKN314
0003042617   Midwest Wireless Wisconsin L.L.C.                                KNKN396
0003042664   Minford Cellular Telephone Company                               KNKQ325
0003042713   Missouri RSA #15 Limited Partnership dba ALLTEL                  KNKN593
0003042850   Missouri RSA No. 2 Partnership dba ALLTEL                        KNKN503
0003042920   Missouri RSA No. 4 Partnership DBA ALLTEL                        KNKN694
0003042927   MVI Corp. d/b/a ALLTEL                                           KNLG969
0003042983   Northwest Arkansas RSA Limited Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL          KNKN580
0003043061   Ohio RSA #3 Limited Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL                     KNKQ312
0003043065   Ohio RSA 2 Limited Partnership, dba ALLTEL                       KNKN993
0003043066   Ohio RSA 5 Limited Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL                      KNKN942
0003043067   Ohio RSA 6 Limited Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL                      KNKN955
0003043081   Oklahoma RSA No. 4 South Limited Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL        KNKQ420
0003043091   Pascagoula Cellular Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL                     KNKA802
0003043098   Petersburg Cellular Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL                     KNKA761
0003043101   Radiofone, Inc. d/b/a ALLTEL                                     KNKA352
0003043103   RCTC Wholesale Corporation d/b/a ALLTEL                          KNKA350

                                            9


                             Federal Communications Commission                         FCC 07-185


File No.      Licensee                                                                Lead Call Sign

0003043106    Southern Illinois RSA Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL                          KNKN506
0003043110    Switch 2000 L.L.C.                                                      WPQR580
0003043113    Texas RSA 11B Limited Partnership DBA ALLTEL                            KNKN537
0003043117    Texas RSA 7B2 Limited Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL                          KNKN731
0003043124    Tucson 21 Cellular Limited Partnership                                  KNKR292
0003043126    Tyler/Longview/Marshall MSA Limited Partnership dba ALLTEL              KNKA520
0003043130    Virginia Cellular LLC                                                   KNKN714
0003043133    Virginia RSA 2 Limited Partnership dba ALLTEL                           KNKN912
0003043134    Western CLEC Corporation                                                WPLM339
0003043137    Wisconsin RSA #1 Limited Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL                       KNKN507
0003043140    Wisconsin RSA #2 Limited Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL                       KNKN485
0003043143    Wisconsin RSA #6 Limited Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL                       KNKN541
0003043144    Wisconsin RSA #7 Limited Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL                       KNKN406
0003043145    Wisconsin RSA No. 8 Limited Partnership d/b/a ALLTEL                    KNKN459
0003043149    WWC Holding Co., Inc.                                                   KNKA571
0003043152    WWC License Holding LLC                                                 KNKP536
0003043157    WWC License L.L.C.                                                      KNKA573
0003043158    WWC Texas RSA Limited Partnership                                       KNKA437
0003043161    Youngstown/Warren MSA Limited Partnership, DBA ALLTEL                   KNKA281


       De facto transfer spectrum leases held by ALTELL subsidiaries

 File No.          Authorization Holder                              Lead Call Sign

 0003067950        WWC Holding Co., Inc.                             WPZZ711 (L000001001)
 0003067708        ALLTEL Communications, Inc.                       WPWQ957 (L000001003)


       Non-controlling general partnership interests in Commission licensees held by ALLTEL

 File No.            Authorization Holder                                      Lead Call Sign

0003072445            Illinois Valley Cellular RSA 2-II Partnership            KNKN582
0003072416            RSA 1 Limited Partnership d/b/a Cellular 29 Plus         KNKN649
0003072222            Northwest Missouri Cellular Limited Partnership          KNKN816
0003072388            Pittsfield Cellular Telephone Company                    KNKA691
0003072458            Wisconsin RSA No. 4 Limited Partnership                  KNKN395
0003072241            Wisconsin RSA-10 Limited Partnership                     KNKN294




                                                10


                                 Federal Communications Commission                              FCC 07-185


II.     SECTION 214 AUTHORIZATIONS


 File No.                         Authorization Holder                    Authorization Number

 ITC-T/C-20070606-00215           ALLTEL Communications, Inc.             ITC-214-19960404-00138
 ITC-T/C-20070606-00216           Kin Network, Inc.                       ITC-214-19970219-00097
 ITC-T/C-20070606-00217           Western Wireless LLC                    ITC-214-20010427-00254

Kin Network, Inc. (“Kin Network”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of ALLTEL, provides wireline tandem
switching services in Kansas. The Applicants filed an application for consent to transfer control of Kin
Network, Inc.’s domestic Section 214 authorization to Atlantis in connection with the transaction
described above. The application is attached to the application for consent to the transfer of control of
Kin Network’s international Section 214 authorization to Atlantis.53




53
  See Kin Network, Inc. International Section 214 Application, FCC File No. ITC-T/C-20070606-00216,
Attachment 1 at 3-4.


                                                     11


                                 Federal Communications Commission                              FCC 07-185


                                      STATEMENT OF
                              COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
                           APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART

Re:     Applications of ALLTEL Corporation, Transferor, and Atlantis Holdings LLC, Transferee for
        Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses, Leases and Authorizations, WT Docket No. 07-128.


       I vote to approve today’s transfer of control. While I cannot be pleased at the current levels of
concentration in the wireless industry, I do not see that this transaction makes the situation any worse. I
do, however, renew my plea (from my statement on the Univision transaction in March of this year) that
the agency conduct a general rulemaking to assess the public interest consequences of private equity firms
holding Commission licenses.

        I dissent, however, to the portion of the order that imposes a cap on the high-cost universal service
support the company receives as a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier (CETC). As I
explained in my dissent to the Joint Board’s recommendation (in May of this year) for a general CETC
cap, piecemeal Universal Service Fund (USF) reform is actually counter-productive to the far more
important goal of rationally implementing comprehensive reform. The condition being imposed in
today’s merger is even more piecemeal than what the Joint Board recommended in May—I fear that the
condition will be an even greater hindrance to rational, comprehensive USF reform. Additionally, it
is disappointing to me that the Commission imposes this condition when the Joint Board currently
is working hard to provide the Commission a recommendation on broader reform.




                                                     12


                                 Federal Communications Commission                             FCC 07-185


                                     STATEMENT OF
                          COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
                         APPROVING IN PART, CONCURRING IN PART

Re:     Application of ALLTEL Corporation, Transferor, and Atlantis Holdings LLC, Transferee for
        Consent to Transfer Control of Licensees, Leases and Authorizations, WT Docket No. 07-128.


         I support the portion of this Order that approves the transfer of ALLTEL’s licenses. I write
separately, however, to emphasize my disagreement with the rationale, or lack thereof, for the terms
required for this transaction, in particular an exception from the application of the interim cap condition
placed on this grant. The Order curiously requires that ALLTEL immediately meet E-911 Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP)-level compliance as a condition precedent for exemption from the freeze on
ALLTEL’s level of universal service support. This “Jack in the Box” surprise requirement that suddenly
sprung up appears as an illogical afterthought. It is unclear to me how ALLTEL might fulfill this
condition given that the Commission currently has an open proceeding addressing the details of how
carriers must implement PSAP-level accuracy.

        I must also underscore that my support for this transfer of control does not prejudge my
consideration of the broad policy issues regarding whether an interim cap on universal service support is
the appropriate vehicle to address the growth of the high cost fund. As such, while I agree that the
Commission must remain attentive to the growth of the fund, particularly among competitive eligible
telecommunications carriers, it is an issue that should be resolved in the relevant proceeding.

        For these reasons, I approve and concur in part in my decision today.




                                                    13


                                 Federal Communications Commission                              FCC 07-185


                                     STATEMENT OF
                            COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL


Re:     Applications of ALLTEL Corporation, Transferor, and Atlantis Holdings LLC, Transferee for
        Consent To Transfer Control of Licenses, Leases and Authorizations, WT Docket No. 07-128.


        I am pleased to support the transfer of control of ALLTEL Corporation given the significant
benefits to wireless consumers and the citizens in Arkansas. However, I am concerned regarding the
“voluntary” conditions agreed to by the applicants. Imposing conditions pertaining to high cost universal
service support and Enhanced 911 (E911) deployment are not merger specific, are unnecessary at this
time, and may prejudice ongoing Commission deliberations.

        Today’s Order conditions approval of the transaction by capping ALLTEL’s high cost universal
service support at June 2007 levels on an annualized basis for an indeterminate period. The condition
also provides ALLTEL a “limited exception”: ALLTEL will not be subject to the cap if it files cost data
showing its own per-line costs as an alternative to the capped funding level, and demonstrates immediate
compliance with the E911 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) location accuracy standard.

        With respect to universal service, today’s Order expressly states that the Commission has not yet
adopted the Joint Board’s recommendation regarding an interim cap on high cost universal service
funding for competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs). ETC support is not raised or
discussed in the record of this proceeding. Furthermore, the condition prejudices the Commission’s open
docket considering universal service support distribution. I also question whether we have thought about
how the actions today may skew future treatment of similarly-situated parties.

         With respect to E911, given its citation only to an FCC News Release, today’s Order makes plain
that the Commission has yet to release its September 11, 2007, E911 Order. There the Commission set a
deadline of September 11, 2012, for wireless carriers to satisfy E911 accuracy as measured at the PSAP
level despite considerable debate as to whether the mandate has adequate support within the E911 record.
E911 is not discussed at all in this proceeding. And, just as with universal service, introducing E911
mandates into this distinct proceeding will surely impact future consideration of similarly-situated parties.

        The conditions imposed today raise more questions than they answer. Given the ongoing nature
of the universal service and E911 proceedings, I wonder whether this is an attempt to bind future
Commission action, and dictate or bind government policy.




                                                     14



Document Created: 2007-10-29 12:58:17
Document Modified: 2007-10-29 12:58:17

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC