FCC 94-99 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 11 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 PP Docket No. 93-253 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: April 20, 1994; Released: May 10, 1994 By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND AND AUCTION ELIGIBILITY III. COMPETITIVE BIDDING DESIGN A. General Competitive Bidding Designs B. IVDS Competitive Bidding Design C. Bidding Procedures 1. Sequencing 2. Bid Increments IV. PROCEDURAL. PAYMENT AND PENALTY ISSUES A. Pre-Auction Application Procedures B. Upfront Payment C. Payment for Licenses Awarded by Competitive Bidding D. Default and Disqualification V. REGULATORY SAFEGUARDS A. Unjust Enrichment Provisions B. Performance Requirements C. Rules Prohibiting Collusion 3 5 6 11 17 17 18 19 19 23 25 27 30 30 31 32 1 Second Report and Order in PP Docket No. 93-253, FCC 94-61, released April 20, 1994 (Second Report and Order). On February 3, 1994, we adopted the First Report and Order in this proceeding, which, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 309(i)(4)(C), pre scribed transfer disclosure requirements with respect to licenses or permits awarded by random selection. First Report and Order in PP Docket No. 93-253, FCC 94-32 (released February 4, 1994), petitions for reconsideration pending. 1 Concurrent with this Fourth Report and Order, we are VI. TREATMENT OF DESIGNATED ENTITIES 34 A. Introduction 34 B. Bidding Credits 39 C. Tax Certificates 48 D. Installment Payments 53 VII. CONCLUSION 55 VIII. FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 56 I.. ORDERING CLAUSES 57 APPENDIX - FINAL RULES I. INTRODUCTION 1. On March 8. 1994, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order in this proceeding (Second Report and Order) 1 establishing general rules and procedures govern ing competitive bidding for radio spectrum (auctions). The Second Report and Order identified the types of services and licenses that may be subject to auctions, described a menu of competitive bidding methods, and adopted generic auction procedures. The Commission stated that specific competitive bidding rules for licensing individual services would be addressed in subsequent Reports and Orders. This Fourth Report and Order establishes rules and procedures for auctioning licenses in the Interactive Video and Data Service (IVDS).2 2. In this Fourth Report and Order, we find that the value of IVDS licenses is not expected to be sufficiently high to justify the use of simultaneous multiple round bidding. We therefore conclude that the auction methods most appropriate to the IVDS are oral bidding (open out cry) and single round sealed bidding. We also establish rules and procedures to deter possible abuses of the bidding and licensing procedures. Last, we establish preferences for small businesses and businesses owned by minorities or women to enhance their participation in the competitive bidding process and in the provision of IVDS system offerings. II. BACKGROUND AND AUCTION ELIGIBILITY 3. The IVDS is a point-to-multipoint. multipoint-to- point, short distance communications service in which li censees may provide information, products, or services to individual subscribers located at fixed locations in the ser vice area, and subscribers may provide responses.3 The rules governing IVDS were adopted in 1992 in Gen. Dock et No. 91-2.4 In that proceeding, the Commission decided to define specific service areas and license IVDS channels in these areas on an exclusive basis. As so defined, the IVDS has 734 service areas, with two licenses of 500 kilohertz each (218.0-218.5 and 218.5-219.0 MHz) available adopting a Third Report and Order, FCC 94-98. in this docket addressing the specific competitive bidding rules and procedures for "narrowband" Personal Communications Services (PCS). 3 Service offerings might include subscriber opportunities to provide real-time responses to educational and pay-per-view programming, commercial data applications such as home bank ing, and the downloading of data. See Report and Order in Gen. Docket No. 91-2, 7 FCC Red 1630, 1630 H 2, 1637 H 54 (1992). 4 Report and Order, supra note 3; see 47 C.F.R. Part 95, Subpart F. 2330 9 FCC Red No. 11 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-99 in each area.5 In the event of mutually exclusive applica tions6 for license, the Commission decided in that earlier proceeding to use the lottery processes specified in our rules.7 4. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Budget Act)8 added a new Section 309(j) to the Commu nications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act),9 to permit the Commission to employ competitive bidding procedures to choose from among two or more mutually exclusive accepted applications for initial license. In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding, we stated that "the principal use of IVDS-allocated spectrum is reasonably likely to involve the licensee receiving com pensation from subscribers for communications services," and therefore proposed to subject IVDS to competitive bidding.10 Following our subsequent review of comments and reply comments, we concluded that IVDS should be subject to auctions." In this Fourth Report and Order we have attempted to design IVDS auction rules and proce dures that meet Congressional objectives. 12 We believe that these objectives are embodied in two basic Commission policy goals: promoting economic growth, and enhancing access to telecommunications service offerings for consum ers, producers, and new entrants. 13 III. COMPETITIVE BIDDING DESIGN 5. As noted, we have determined that mutually exclusive IVDS applications are subject to auctions. We must, there fore, identify the methodology and procedure we will use to auction the licenses. We do so in the paragraphs below, pursuant to Section 309(j)(3) of the Communications Act and based on the record in this proceeding. 14 As described below, some further details about specific competitive bid ding procedures will be provided later by Public Notice(s). 15 A. General Competitive Bidding Designs 6. The Second Report and Order established the criteria to be used in selecting the auction design method for each auctionable service. Generally, we concluded that awarding licenses to those parties that value them most highly will foster Congress' policy objectives. In this regard, we noted that because a bidder's ability to introduce valuable new services and to deploy them quickly, intensively, and effi ciently increases the value of the license to that bidder, an auction design that awards licenses to those bidders who are willing to pay the highest bid tends to promote the development and rapid deployment of new services and the efficient and intensive use of the spectrum. 7. We concluded that where the licenses to be auctioned are interdependent (that is, either substitutes for, or com plements to, each other) and their value is expected to be high, "simultaneous multiple round" auctions would best achieve the Commission's goals for competitive bidding. 16 We also noted that simultaneous multiple round bidding is more complex for bidders and may be administratively more expensive than other auction methods we may select, and indicated that we would use this design only in in stances where the expected value of the licenses to be auctioned is high relative to the costs of conducting a simultaneous multiple round auction. 1 ' 8. In the Second Report and Order we stated our inten tion to tailor the auction design to fit the characteristics of the licenses to be awarded. We noted that simultaneous multiple round auctions may not be appropriate for all licenses. 18 The less the interdependence among licenses, the less the benefit to auctioning them simultaneously. To the extent that simultaneous auctions are more costly and com plex to run, we indicated that we may choose a sequential auction design, including sequential oral auctions, when there is little interdependence among individual licenses. 9. We further explained that when the values of particu lar licenses to be auctioned are low relative to the costs of conducting a simultaneous multiple round auction, we may consider auction designs that are relatively simple. 5 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 95.803. 95.853. IVDS service or market areas are defined in terms of the 734 cellular system service areas. See Public Notice, Report No. 92-40, released January 24, 1992; 47 C.F.R. § 22.903 (cellular). Many of these service areas cover rural or remote, sparsely populated areas. 6 The Commission, in general, "considers two or more applica tions to be mutually exclusive' if their conflicts are such that the grant of one application would effectively preclude, by reason of harmful electrical interference, the grant of one or more of the other applications." Second Report and Order at 1 12 n.5. 7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.972 (1992). On September 15, 1993, a lottery for nine IVDS markets was conducted. This lottery was permitted under the Budget Act described below, the pertinent applications having been accepted for filing by the Commission prior to July 26, 1993. See Budget Act, infra note 8, § 6002(e). 6 Pub. L. No. 103-66, Title VI, § 6()02(a), 107 Stat. 312, 387 (1993)(Budget Act); see H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 213, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 480-89 (1993), reprinted in 1993 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1169-78. 9 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-713. * 10 8 FCC Red 7635, 7659 f 143 (1993); see generally 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2). 1 ' Second Report and Order at 1 f 49-53. 12 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3). 13 Second Report and Order at f 1 3-7. 14 We received comments or reply comments on auctioning licenses in the IVDS from the following: American Group (American); Quentin L. Breen (Breen): Chase McNulty Group, Inc. (Chase); EON Corporation (EON)(e.c pane filings); In dependent Cellular Consultants (ICC); Andrea L. Johnson (Johnson); Kingswood Associates (Kingswood); NYNEX Corpo ration (NYNEX); Radio Telecom and Technology, Inc. (RTT); Harry Stevens, Jr. (Stevens); and Richard L. Vega Group (RLV). Of these, five -- American (reply comment at 23-25), Kingswood (reply comment at 23-25), NYNEX (comment at 11), Stevens (reply comment at 1), and RLV (comment at 11-14) -- commented in this context only on whether IVDS should be subject to auctions, an issue we addressed in the Second Report and Order. See f 3, supra. 15 The Public Notice(s) will be issued by either the Commis sion or the Private Radio Bureau. 1S See Second Report and Order at U 1 106-111. With this method, all licenses or classes of licenses are auctioned at once, using multiple rounds, and the bidding continues until bidding activity subsides. Thus, bidders may repeatedly "top" the pre viously high bids. See id. at 1 11 82, 86. 17 Id. at 1 111. 18 Id. atf 112. 2331 FCC 94-99 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 11 with low administrative costs and minimal costs to the auction participants. We noted that as the value of licenses decreases, and thus the benefits of simultaneous multiple round bidding diminish relative to the cost and complexity of such auctions, a less complex auction method may be more suitable. For example, with large numbers of low value licenses we noted that we may decide that it is preferable to implement a low cost auction method such as single round sealed bidding to minimize cost and expedite the licensing process. 10. Last, in the Second Report and Order we noted that Congress directed us to "design and test multiple alter native methodologies under appropriate circumstances." 19 Thus, where appropriate, we intend to choose bidding methods other than simultaneous multiple round auctions and periodically reevaluate the effectiveness of all methods utilized. B. IVDS Competitive Bidding Design 11. We find that the generally preferred method of si multaneous multiple round auctions is not the most appro priate for IVDS, and that IVDS also presents a good opportunity to test less complex alternative procedures. As discussed below, of the auction methods described in the Second Report and Order, oral bidding (open outcry) and single round sealed bidding appear best suited to the IVDS. Both are relatively inexpensive for the Commission to ad minister, and the costs of participation by bidders are fairly low. Moreover, both have the advantage of being relatively simple for bidders to understand and also generally can be completed quickly. Thus, these methods are likely to pro mote the statutory goal of rapid implementation of service to the public.20 We therefore adopt these two methods to auction IVDS licenses.21 12. The IVDS offers two 500 kilohertz channels (fre quency segments A and B) in each of 734 service areas, and the aggregation of both channels in a market is not permitted. While there may be some degree of interdependency among the IVDS licenses for geographi cally contiguous areas,22 we do not believe that it is great enough to justify the greater costs and administrative com plexities associated with holding a simultaneous multiple round auction.23 Last, with large numbers of IVDS licenses covering only rural areas.24 we anticipate that the demand for, and value of, most markets will not be great enough to justify the use of more complex methods such as simulta neous multiple round auctions.25 13. For IVDS open outcry auctions, each service area (with two licenses each) will be auctioned individually, and the two highest bidders in each service area will be award ed a license. The highest bidder will get first choice of frequency segment A or segment B at the highest bid price. The second highest bidder will be awarded the remaining segment at the amount it bid. 14. With single round sealed bidding, we will auction the two frequency segments separately. Licenses for frequency segment will be auctioned first. As soon as practicable thereafter, we will announce the high bidders for licenses on frequency segment B and announce a deadline date for short-form applications for segment A licenses. In the event of a tie in single round sealed bidding, we will hold one additional round between the parties that tied. 15. Having both oral and sealed bidding methods avail able permits us the flexibility to fit the right auction meth od to the particular IVDS licenses being auctioned. Further, it is consistent with Congress' directive that we design and test multiple alternative methodologies under different circumstances. ICC comments that, of the two methods, sealed (or electronic) bidding is preferable to oral bidding because some potential bidders perhaps cannot afford to attend an auction in person.26 As noted in the Second Report and Order, however, such sealed bidding generates no information about license values until after the auction closes, tending to decrease bid levels and re duce the efficiency of the license assignment.27 We there fore believe that oral bidding should be used in the potentially higher valued markets, where having license value information during the auction is especially impor tant, and that sealed bidding should be used for the re maining markets. 28 16. We believe that, in general, the greater the popula tion in the service area, the greater will be the perceived value of. and demand for, the license. The 734 service areas for the IVDS are identical to those of cellular radio service areas: 306 "Metropolitan Statistical Areas" (MSAs) and 428 "Rural Service Areas" (RSAs).2" We have concluded that we should conduct oral auctions for the IVDS service areas corresponding to MSAs, and sealed bid auctions for the remaining service areas, or RSAs. We reserve the discretion to reconsider this bidding design if. in light of experience gained with auctions, a change appears warranted. tq Id. at H 115. quoting 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3); see also ICC comment at 9 (supporting IVDS as a candidate for testing alternative methodologies). See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(A).20 21 If, as we gain experience, we find that another auction design for the IVDS would better achieve the goals of the Budget Act, we may revisit this issue. 22 Two commenters, EON and ICC, very briefly address the issue of potential interdependence among IVDS licenses. EON argues that the sequence of IVDS auctions should track "ADls," a proposal we discuss and adopt infra. EON does not state, however, that bidders might perceive the aggregation of licenses to result in additional efficiencies of IVDS operation. EON ex pane filing of Jan.26, 1994, at 4. ICC states that auction proce dures favoring license aggregation run counter to policies favor ing licensee diversity. ICC Comment at 7. 23 The interdependencies for IVDS are likely to be less than for services where "roaming" is important. See generally Second Report and Order at H 91. The IVDS rules do not permit roaming across service areas. 24 See note 5, supra. 25 See Second Report and Order at f f 112-113. " ICC comment at 6-7, reply comment at 7-8. Chase would prefer that we randomly alternate between oral and sealed methodologies. Chase comment at 1-2. 27 Second Report and Order at f 89 n.81. 28 For example, when choosing between the two methods, we' do not want to hold the more expensive oral bidding auction in instances where we believe that the operational costs of holding the auction might outweigh the benefits (efficient allocation and revenues generated). 2