Sec.  22.940   Criteria for comparative cellular renewal proceedings.

   This section sets forth criteria to be used in comparative cellular renewal
   proceedings. The ultimate issue in comparative renewal proceedings will be
   to determine, in light of the evidence adduced in the proceeding, what
   disposition  of the applications would best serve the public interest,
   convenience and necessity.

   (a)  Renewal expectancies. The most important comparative factor to be
   considered  in  a  comparative  cellular renewal proceeding is a major
   preference, commonly referred to as a “renewal expectancy.”

   (1)  The  cellular renewal applicant involved in a comparative renewal
   proceeding will receive a renewal expectancy, if its past record for the
   relevant license period demonstrates that:

   (i) The renewal applicant has provided “substantial” service during its past
   license term. “Substantial” service is defined as service which is sound,
   favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just
   might minimally warrant renewal; and

   (ii) The renewal applicant has substantially compiled with applicable FCC
   rules, policies and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

   (2) In order to establish its right to a renewal expectancy, a cellular
   renewal applicant involved in a comparative renewal proceeding must submit a
   showing explaining why it should receive a renewal expectancy. At a minimum,
   this showing must include.

   (i) A description of its current service in terms of geographic coverage and
   population served, as well as the system's ability to accommodate the needs
   of roamers;

   (ii) An explanation of its record of expansion, including a timetable of the
   construction  of new cell sites to meet changes in demand for cellular
   service;

   (iii) A description of its investments in its cellular system; and

   (iv) Copies of all FCC orders finding the licensee to have violated the
   Communications Act or any FCC rule or policy; and a list of any pending
   proceedings that relate to any matter described in this paragraph.

   (3) In making its showing of entitlement to a renewal expectancy, a renewal
   applicant may claim credit for any system modification applications that
   were pending on the date it filed its renewal application. Such credit will
   not be allowed if the modification application is dismissed or denied.

   (b) Additional comparative issues. The following additional comparative
   issues will be included in comparative cellular renewal proceedings, if a
   full comparative hearing is conducted pursuant to  Sec. 22.935(c).

   (1) To determine on a comparative basis the geographic areas and population
   that each applicant proposes to serve; to determine and compare the relative
   demand for the services proposed in said areas; and to determine and compare
   the  ability  of  each  applicant's cellular system to accommodate the
   anticipated demand for both local and roamer service;

   (2)  To determine on a comparative basis each applicant's proposal for
   expanding its system capacity in a coordinated manner in order to meet
   anticipated increasing demand for both local and roamer service;

   (3) To determine on a comparative basis the nature and extent of the service
   proposed by each applicant, including each applicant's proposed rates,
   charges, maintenance, personnel, practices, classifications, regulations and
   facilities (including switching capabilities); and

   (4) To determine on a comparative basis each applicant's past performance in
   the cellular industry or another business of comparable type and size.

   (c) Additional showings for competing applications. With respect to evidence
   introduced pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section, any applicant
   filing  a competing application against a cellular renewal application
   (competing applicant) who claims a preference for offering any service not
   currently offered by the incumbent licensee must demonstrate that there is
   demand for that new service and also present a business plan showing that
   the competing applicant can operate the system economically. Any competing
   applicant who proposes to replace analog technology with digital technology
   will receive no credit for its proposal unless it submits a business plan
   showing how it will operate its system economically and how it will provide
   more comprehensive service than does the incumbent licensee with existing
   and implemented cellular technology.