Federal Communications Commission DA 12-2034
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Application of AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC 
and 700 MHz, L.L.C.
For Consent To Assign Two Lower 700 MHz 
Band C Block Licenses
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ULS File No. 0005262760
ORDER
Adopted:  December 18, 2012                 Released:  December 18, 2012
By the Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
1. In this Order, we dismiss for lack of party-in-interest standing a number of pleadings by 
Mr. Maneesh Pangasa against the application
1
of AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC (“AT&T Mobility”), an 
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Inc. (collectively, “AT&T”), and 700 MHz, L.L.C. (“700”
and together with AT&T Mobility, the “Applicants”) to assign two Lower 700 MHz Band C Block 
spectrum licenses from 700 to AT&T Mobility.
I. BACKGROUND
2. On June 14, 2012, AT&T Mobility and 700 filed the Application pursuant to section 
310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Communications Act”),
2
seeking approval 
to assign two Lower 700 MHz Band C Block spectrum licenses.  The Commission released a Public 
Notice on July 11, 2012, seeking comment on the Application.
3
  In response to the Comment Public 
Notice, Mr. Pangasa submitted a number of documents (“Pangasa Pleadings”), two of which are identical 
and are each labeled a “Petition To Conditionally Approve or Deny.”
4
  The Petition cites concerns about 
AT&T’s spectrum purchases in the aggregate and asks that approval of the transaction be conditioned on 
imposing interoperability requirements.
5
  The pleadings on their face do not identify Mr. Pangasa as the 
filer or explain how the instant transaction could harm Mr. Pangasa specifically.
3. The Applicants filed a Joint Opposition and Motion to Dismiss on August 6, 2012, in 
which they assert that Mr. Pangasa fails to meet any of the criteria for establishing party-in-interest 
standing and accordingly urge dismissal of the Pangasa Pleadings.
6
  The Applicants also note that the 
                                                          
1
ULS File No. 0005262760 (the “Application”).
2
47 U.S.C. § 310(d).  
3
AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC and 700 MHz, L.L.C. Seek FCC Consent to the Assignment of Two Lower 700 
MHz Band C Block Licenses, ULS File No. 0005262760, Public Notice, DA 12-1112 (rel. July 11, 2012) 
(“Comment Public Notice”).
4
The documents also are labeled “Opposition to AT&T Application With 700 MHz LLC,” and both were filed on 
filed July 16, 2012 (“Petition”).
5
Id.
6
Joint Opposition and Motion to Dismiss of AT&T Inc. and 700 MHz, L.L.C., filed August 6, 2012 (“Joint 
Opposition”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-2034
Pangasa Pleadings contain a number of procedural defects
7
and that the Pangasa Pleadings were not 
served upon either AT&T or 700 in contravention of section 1.939(c) of the Commission’s rules.
8
  Mr. 
Pangasa did not respond to the Joint Opposition.
II. DISCUSSION
4. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission’s rules require that 
a petition to deny must contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that the petitioner is a party 
in interest.
9
  To establish party-in-interest standing, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate 
that grant of the subject application would cause it to suffer a direct injury.
10
  In addition, a petitioner 
must demonstrate a causal link between the claimed injury and the challenged action:  it must demonstrate 
that the injury can be traced to the challenged action and that the injury would be prevented or redressed 
by the relief requested.
11
  The Commission repeatedly has upheld these standards.
12
5. We find that neither the Pangasa Petition nor any of his various subsequent filings asserts 
specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that Mr. Pangasa is a party in interest with respect to this 
transaction.  Instead, Mr. Pangasa’s submissions raise general concerns about spectrum aggregation and
various wireless industry practices.  The Pangasa Pleadings do not explain how Mr. Pangasa might be 
injured by an assignment of spectrum to AT&T, much less how any such injury might be redressed by 
denying or conditioning the Application.  We accordingly dismiss the Pangasa Pleadings, including the 
Petition, for lack of party-in-interest standing.
13
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
6. Accordingly, having reviewed the Application and the record in this matter, IT IS 
ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and (j), 309, and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), (j), 309, 310(d), the Petition and Pleadings filed by Maneesh Pangasa are 
hereby DISMISSED for the reasons stated herein.
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, that the staff of the Mobility Division of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau SHALL PROCESS the following application consistent with this Order and 
the Commission’s rules: ULS File No. 0005262760.
                                                          
7
The alleged defects include failure to provide the filer’s name, street address, telephone number, or signature.  
Joint Opposition at 3-4.
8
Id. at 4; see 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(c).
9
47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(d).
10
Applications of T-Mobile License, LLC, AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC 
For Consent to Assign AWS-1 Licenses, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 4124, 4126 ¶ 6 (WTB 2012) (“T-Mobile-AT&T 
Order”); Wireless Co., L.P., Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13233, 13235 ¶ 7 (WTB 1995) (“Wireless Co.”), citing Sierra Club 
v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733 (1972).
11
T-Mobile-AT&T Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 4126 ¶ 6; Wireless Co., 10 FCC Rcd at 13235 ¶ 7.
12
See, e.g., Application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC and D&E Investments, Inc. For Consent to Assign 
Lower 700 MHz C Block Licenses, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 1669, 1670-71 ¶ 6 (WTB 2012).
13
In this instance, because we find that the Petition does not demonstrate the requisite party-in-interest standing, we 
need not decide whether it should be dismissed based on the procedural deficiencies alleged by the Applicants.
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-2034
8. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Katherine M. Harris
Deputy Chief, Mobility Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau