§  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 § 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.