AT&T’s appeal of the FCC’s grant of 8 licenses in the 2 GHz band ...

agency told the court AT&T lacked standing to claim the FCC should have held an auction for the licenses instead of simply giving authorizations. AT&T suggested that the Commission had violated the Communications Act when it decided not to hold extensive fact-finding proceedings on the viability of mobile satellite service (MSS). ICO was the only one that suggested MSS wouldn’t be viable without an ancillary terrestrial component (ATC), it said, while “other applicants disagreed with ICO about the economic viability of satellite- only MSS.” Five applicants, including ICO, later “sent the Commission a joint letter stating that nothing in the ICO letter seeking authority to provide ancillary terrestrial services ‘reflects a diminished need for MSS spectrum.’ On the contrary, most applicants believe that a terrestrial component is not necessary for the success of the MSS systems.” AT&T also said the agency had attempted to evade an auction by granting the 2 GHz licenses before deciding whether to allow ATC, implying that additional companies would have applied for 2 GHz licenses and an auction would have been required, an argument the intervenors said was wrong: “The Commission routinely accepts spectrum applications first, and then -- based on its review of the applications -- crafts rules on how the spectrum may be used. Even if the Commission had allowed the filing of additional applications… it is not likely that many (if any) additional companies would applied for 2 GHz MSS license. Significantly, the wireless carriers do not allege that… they would have filed applications to construct satellite systems.” The ORBIT Act would have precluded an auction for the 2 GHz spectrum, contrary to AT&T’s claim, they said.