WASHINGTON-As expected, DCR PCS Inc., part of Pocket Communications Inc. and the second-largest C-block winner, responded to National Telecom PCS Inc.’s recent second supplement to its petition to deny DCR’s licenses by stating, “once again, there is no affidavit support or legal authority advanced for NatTel’s new speculations about DCR’s bidding conduct during the [C-block] auction.”
NatTel has alleged DCR used information leaked by a financial consultant employed unknowingly by both of them to bid on C-block personal communications services licenses in the Pacific Rim, causing NatTel to pay an extra $50,000 for American Samoa, which it subsequently lost by default.
In paperwork filed with the Federal Communications Commission Oct. 11, DCR disparaged NatTel’s continued efforts to derail its potential PCS network, which is on hold until the commission rules on the pending petition to deny. Addressing NatTel’s charges of collusion between DCR and financial fund-raiser CE Capital Consultants Inc., DCR first of all wrote that the FCC is not in the business of settling contractual disputes between parties; it then pointed out that CE Capital has been neither an auction applicant or an attributable investor in any other applicant, thus ruling out any violation of FCC anticollusion rules.
DCR also said neither principal of DCR/Pocket-Janis Riker or Daniel Riker-had received any inside information from CE Capital or any other entity about NatTel’s Pacific Rim bidding strategy, and that at least one of them was present at all times to approve bids on any given market. In fact, DCR wrote, the Pacific Rim markets-including the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and Guam-were part of its bidding strategy formulated in 1995 as a complement to its Hawaii interest gained previously, and only after negotiations with the Guam A- and B-block PCS winners fell through did DCR decide to pursue a C-block license.
“In short, whatever NatTel’s own interest in these three Pacific markets may or may not have been in the C-block auction, DCR had a clear interest in these C-block properties as an extension of the Hawaii markets that long predated NatTel’s relationship with CE Capital,” DCR concluded. “DCR’s use of a recognized auction strategy of securing larger markets within its eligibility limits before bidding on complementary smaller ones was certainly not inconsistent with that interest.”
