WASHINGTON-C-block personal communications services bidder National Telecom PCS Inc. has charged DCR PCS Inc., also known as Pocket Communications Inc., with conducting illegal ex parte communications regarding its PCS licenses now tied up in bankruptcy proceedings.
In a Nov. 8 letter to John Riffer, FCC associate general counsel, NatTel President Jack E. Robinson said he “just recently discovered” that Pocket and its controlling shareholders had approached the FCC with a request for a declaratory ruling regarding any problem with a possible change in the make-up of Pocket’s board of directors. NatTel-which is an interested party in Pocket’s bankruptcy proceedings because it has an application before the FCC to deny DCR’s licenses-was not informed of this pleading and only discovered its existence at a Nov. 6 bankruptcy hearing in Baltimore.
According to Robinson, this was not the first instance DCR PCS violated standard procedure. An Aug. 25 letter to NatTel from Riffer had the attorney saying the DCR application proceedings were restricted and no ex parte comments regarding such applications’ merits would be accepted.
But Robinson believes the rules did allow comments “as long as such communications do not address the merits or outcome of the applications proceedings.”
On two occasions in October, Pocket filed paperwork pertaining to its licenses at the commission without notifying NatTel; attorneys for Pocket’s major shareholders also conducted meetings with FCC officials about the declaratory proceeding, meetings Robinson claimed he had a right to attend.
“Since NatTel is a party in that restricted licensing proceeding and since that restricted licensing proceeding raises the exact same issues that are raised in the declaratory proceeding, it is unbelievable that DCR and Pacific Eagle (a major shareholder and lender) would
attempt to litigate the declaratory proceeding without giving NatTel notice and an opportunity to be heard therein,” according to Robinson’s request.
“The facts in this case are undisputed. It is impossible for the commission to consider, analyze or rule in the declaratory proceeding without, in some manner, either directly or indirectly discussing and/or addressing the merits or outcome of NatTel’s application for review.”
Robinson continued, “DCR, Pacific Eagle and their respective counsel seem to believe that they are not bound by the commission’s ex parte rules and that they can flout such rules with reckless and arrogant abandon. It is high time that the commission let them, and the rest of the wireless industry, know that the ex parte rules exist to be followed.”
Riffer was asked to order both DCR and Pacific Eagle to “serve on NatTel every single pleading, paper and document filed and/or served in the declaratory proceeding,” with a continuing obligation to do so.
Aside from that issue, Robinson asked that both parties be fined for failing to apprise NatTel of anything having to do with the proceeding, charging that “they wanted the declaratory proceeding to be conducted in secret so NatTel would not gain access to additional evidence which NatTel could use to bolster its allegations against DCR in the licensing proceeding.”
Robinson proposed a fine of $25,000 each, paid directly to NatTel, although he said he really believes that “disqualification may be the only remedy sufficient to preserve the integrity of the commission’s processes.”
Riffer told RCR that the matter “is under consideration,” but has not been resolved.
He would not comment on a time frame.
