IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 
TV Communications Network, Inc.,      )    
         )
    Appellant,    ) 
         )
   v.       )     No. 11-1443  
         ) 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS     ) 
COMMISSION        )  
         )
    Apele.    )
MOTION OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION FOR DISMISSAL IN PART AND FOR
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE IN PART
 Appellant TV Communications Network, Inc. (“TVCN”) was the 
winning bidder at an auction conducted by the Federal Communications 
Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) of radio spectrum licenses.  TVCN 
acquired those licenses subject to the condition that it would make full and 
timely payment for the licenses under an installment payment plan.  After 
TVCN failed to make timely payments, its licenses automatically cancelled 
pursuant to the Commission’s rules.   
 In this case, TVCN seeks to challenge two FCC decisions: (1) an 
order issued on January 5, 2010, declining TVCN’s request for a waiver of 
the Commission’s automatic cancellation rules and for reinstatement of 
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 1 of 19
2
TVCN’s licenses (the Installment Payment Order);
1
 and (2) a subsequent 
order dismissing TVCN’s untimely petition for administrative 
reconsideration of the Installment Payment Order (the Reconsideration
Dismissal Order).
2
  Because TVCN did not file its appeal from the 
Installment Payment Order within the thirty-day window prescribed by 
section 402(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 402(c), that appeal 
should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  And because TVCN’s 
challenge to the Reconsideration Dismissal Order is clearly without merit, 
the Court should affirm that order without briefing and argument. See
Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297-98 (D.C. Cir. 1987) 
(summary affirmance is appropriate where “the merits of [the] case are so 
clear that expedited action is justified.”).
1
Alpine PCS, Inc.; CommNet Communications Network, Inc.; GLH
Communications, Inc.; Inforum Communications, Inc.; Lancaster 
Communications, Inc.; Allen Leeds; TV Communications Network, Inc.;
Virginia Communications, Inc. Requests for Waiver of the Installment 
Payment Rules and Reinstatement of Licenses, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 25 FCC Rcd 469 (2010) (“Installment Payment Order”), aff’d, Alpine
PCS, Inc. v. FCC, 404 Fed. Appx. 508 (D.C. Cir. 2010), reh. denied, No. 10-
1020 (D.C. Cir., Feb. 10, 2011). 
2
TV Communications Network, Inc., Request for Waiver of the Installment 
Payment Rules and Reinstatement of Licenses, Order on Reconsideration, 26 
FCC Rcd 14891 (2011) (“Reconsideration Dismissal Order”).
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 2 of 19
3
BACKGROUND
A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework 
Licensing Through Spectrum Auctions.  Section 301 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (“Communications Act” or “the Act”), 47 
U.S.C. § 301, vests in the FCC exclusive authority to grant spectrum 
licenses when the agency finds that the “public convenience, interest, or 
necessity will be served thereby.”  47 U.S.C. § 307(a); see also id. § 309(a).
In 1993, Congress amended the Act to authorize the FCC to award certain 
spectrum licenses through a system of “competitive bidding,” i.e., by 
auction. See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).  Congress specified that the use of auctions 
would not “diminish the authority of the Commission under the other 
provisions of [the Act] to regulate or reclaim spectrum licenses.” 47 U.S.C. 
§ 309(j)(6)(C). 
The FCC’s Installment Payment Program.  Pursuant to the Act’s 
competitive bidding provisions, the FCC adopted rules for certain auctions 
permitting qualified small businesses to pay their winning bids in 
installments.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110 (1994).
3
  Under those rules, when a 
3
The FCC has discontinued the use of installment payments for future 
auctions, but has allowed entities already paying in installments to continue 
to do so. See TV Communications Network, Inc., Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1397, 
1399 (¶ 3) (WTB 2007) (“Staff Order”), aff’d, Installment Payment Order,
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 3 of 19
4
licensee elects to take advantage of an installment payment plan, its license 
is conditioned on the “full and timely” performance of the licensee’s 
obligations under the plan, and its failure to make full and timely payments 
automatically triggers cancellation of the license.  47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(d)(4) 
(1994). See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – 
Competitive Bidding, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2391
(¶ 240) (1994); Installment Payment Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 472 (¶ 3); see
also Morris Commnc’ns v. FCC, 566 F.3d 184, 186 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 
In 1997, the FCC amended its installment payment rules to provide 
for “automatic” grace periods for licensees paying for their licenses in 
installments.  Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules — 
Competitive Bidding Procedures, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 436 (1997).  Under the 
amended rules, a licensee that misses a required installment payment has the 
benefit of two grace periods during which the missed payment can be paid 
(along with applicable late fees), without incurring cancellation of the 
license. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(f)(4)(i), (ii) (2001).
4
  If, however, the 
25 FCC Rcd 469, recon. dismissed, Reconsideration Dismissal Order, 26 
FCC Rcd 14891. 
4
At the time of TVCN’s first missed payment, the grace period was 90 days.  
Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules – Competitive Bidding 
Procedures, Order on Reconsideration of the Third Report and Order, Fifth 
Report and Order, and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 
FCC Rcd 15293, 15310 (¶ 28) (2000), recon. denied, 18 FCC Rcd 10180 
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 4 of 19
5
licensee persists in failing to make its required payment by the end of the 
second grace period, the license “automatically cancel[s]” without any 
action by the FCC, and the defaulting licensee is “subject to debt collection 
procedures.” Id., § 1.2110(g)(4)(iv) (1998). In other words, the licensee 
loses its license, is not refunded prior payments, and is subject to collection 
of the outstanding debt due. 
Waiver Rule.  Section 1.925 of the FCC’s rules permits the 
Commission to consider whether to waive its wireless service rules where an 
applicant shows (1) “[t]he underlying purpose of the rule(s) would not be 
served or would be frustrated by application to the instant case, and that a 
grant of the requested waiver would be in the public interest,” or (2) “[i]n 
view of unique or unusual factual circumstances of the instant case, 
application of the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly burdensome or 
contrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no reasonable 
alternative.”  47 C.F.R. § 1.925. See Morris Commc’ns, 566 F.3d at 189. 
B.  This Proceeding 
TVCN’s License Payment Defaults and Subsequent Waiver 
Requests. TVCN won twelve Broadband Radio Service licenses at auction 
and elected to pay for those licenses through the FCC’s installment payment 
(2003).  The grace period changed to three calendar months on October 30, 
2000. Id.
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 5 of 19
6
program.  TVCN subsequently acquired two additional licenses in the 
secondary market that were also subject to installment payment obligations.  
Installment Payment Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 478 (¶ 13). 
TVCN failed to make the installment payment due in November 1998 
for one of its licenses (License MDB405) and, after the expiration of the two 
grace periods, that license cancelled automatically. See id.; Staff Order, 22 
FCC Rcd at 1400 (¶ 7).  In November 2001 — after missing the August 31, 
2001 installment payment for all of its remaining licenses — TVCN asked 
the FCC to waive its installment payment rules for six months or until the 
company could obtain the necessary funding to make the required payments.  
TVCN claimed that “[u]nforseen economic conditions” had forced it to seek 
potential buyers for its licenses and that its attempts to find such buyers or 
negotiate financing had not been successful.  TVCN Nov. 29, 2001 Letter.
TVCN failed to tender the required payment by the expiration of the two 
grace periods and, on March 1, 2002, the remaining 13 licenses cancelled 
automatically. Installment Payment Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 478 (¶ 13). 
After the FCC initiated debt collection procedures, TVCN on 
February 4, 2003 filed another request for a waiver of the installment 
payment rules for the previously cancelled licenses, and asked for a one-year 
grace period for making payment.  TVCN stated that it had been continually 
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 6 of 19
7
“losing money” on its service and had been “avoiding filing for bankruptcy 
under the hope that the Commission would grant [its waiver] request.”
TVCN February 4, 2003 Letter at 1. TVCN subsequently told the FCC that 
it had entered into an agreement to transfer the licenses to another entity.  
Staff Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 1402 (¶ 8). 
FCC Orders. In an order released January 29, 2007, the FCC’s staff 
denied TVCN’s waiver request. Staff Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1397.
On January 5, 2010, the FCC affirmed the Staff Order and seven 
similar staff denials of waivers of the installment payment rules.  Installment
Payment Order, 25 FCC Rcd 469.  The FCC concluded that TVCN had 
failed to show, under the first part of 47 C.F.R. § 1.925, that the grant of a 
waiver would further the objectives underlying the automatic cancellation 
rule and the public interest. Id. at 481-89 (¶¶ 18-31).  The FCC explained 
that the automatic cancellation rule safeguards the integrity of the auction 
and licensing process by ensuring that entities that have won licenses at 
auction on the promise of full payment of the winning bid remain willing 
and able to fulfill their payment obligations.  Id. at 481 (¶ 19).  Granting a 
waiver here, the agency observed, would undermine that purpose.  Id. at
486-87 (¶¶ 28-29).  It would also give auction bidders an increased incentive 
to make bids they could not pay, and would reduce opportunities for 
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 7 of 19
8
competing bidders — who could honor their payment obligations — to win 
licenses. See id. at 482-83 (¶ 21).
The FCC accordingly applied its consistent “policy of strict 
enforcement of the automatic cancellation rule” in this case.  Id. at 483
(¶ 22).  The agency noted that TVCN had neither paid its outstanding debt 
nor made consistent post-default payments with an unconditional promise to 
pay its remaining debt in accordance with the FCC’s payment terms.  Id. at
486 (¶ 28 & n.125).
  The FCC further concluded that TVCN had failed to show any unique 
or unusual factual circumstances that justified a grant of a waiver.  Id. at
489-96 (¶¶ 32-46) (discussing failure to satisfy standard under 47 C.F.R.
§ 1.925).  The agency specifically noted that where, as in this case, a 
successful auction bidder has sought to justify its failure to honor its 
installment payment obligations by relying on its asserted financial distress, 
the Commission has consistently declined to waive the automatic 
cancellation rule. Id. at 491 (¶ 35).
Notice to TVCN. On January 5, 2010, the day the Installment
Payment Order was released, the FCC emailed a copy to TVCN at the email 
address listed in its application for review. The next day, the FCC             
(1) announced its decision in its Daily Digest (a public list of recent FCC 
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 8 of 19
9
actions), (2) placed the order on its website, and (3) sent TVCN another 
copy of the order by certified mail to the mailing address listed on TVCN’s 
application for review.  Although the U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) left a 
notice of the certified mail at TVCN’s address on January 8, 2011, TVCN 
did not sign a receipt for the package until February 3, 2011.
Reconsideration Dismissal Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14892 (¶ 4). 
Judicial and Reconsideration Proceedings.  On February 4, 2010, 
Alpine PCS, Inc. (“Alpine”), another licensee that failed to make timely 
installment payments and was denied a waiver of the automatic cancellation 
rule in the Installment Payment Order, filed a timely notice of appeal of that 
order.  On December 21, 2010, this Court denied Alpine’s appeal of the 
Installment Payment Order.  Alpine PCS, Inc. v. FCC, 404 Fed. Appx. 508 
(D.C. Cir. 2010), reh. denied, No. 10-1020 (D.C. Cir., Feb. 10, 2011).
While the Alpine case was before this Court, TVCN, on February 18, 
2010, filed with the Commission a petition asking the agency (1) to extend 
retroactively the deadline for filing a petition for reconsideration of the
Installment Payment Order, and (2) to reconsider the Installment Payment 
Order.  In support of its extension request, TVCN asserted that it did not 
receive a copy of the Installment Payment Order by certified mail until 
February 3, 2010, because its Chief Executive Officer was “away from the 
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 9 of 19
10
office during the month of January.”  TVCN Petition at 1.  TVCN 
acknowledged that it had not monitored the FCC’s public releases to 
ascertain whether the FCC had ruled on its waiver.  Id.
On October 14, 2011, the FCC denied TVCN’s request for an 
extension of time and dismissed its reconsideration petition.  
Reconsideration Dismissal Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14891.  The Commission 
explained that section 405(a) of the Communications Act requires that 
petitions for reconsideration be filed within 30 days of public notice of the 
decision from which reconsideration is sought.  Id. at 14893 (¶ 5). See 47
U.S.C. § 405; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f) (FCC’s implementing rule).  
Because public notice of the Installment Payment Order occurred on 
January 5, 2010, the date the order was released (see 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(b)(2)), 
the statutory deadline for filing TVCN’s reconsideration petition was 
February 4, 2010, and thus TVCN filed its petition two weeks after that 
deadline had passed. Reconsideration Dismissal Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 
14893 (¶ 5). See 47 U.S.C. § 405; 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f).
The FCC concluded that TVCN had not shown the extraordinary 
circumstances necessary to excuse its failure to meet the statutory filing 
deadline. Id. at 14894 (¶ 8).  The agency explained that TVCN had not 
alleged, let alone shown, any agency error in providing notice.  Id. at 14893 
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 10 of 19
11
(¶ 7).  The FCC noted that TVCN’s own pleading, which recounts TVCN’s 
failure to monitor its mail between January 8, 2010, and February 3, 2010, 
suggests that TVCN’s delay in receiving actual notice of the Installment
Payment Order “was a business decision or an oversight entirely within 
[TVCN’s] control.”  Id. The FCC also explained that TVCN could have 
ascertained when the Installment Payment Order was released by checking 
the FCC’s daily releases on the FCC’s web site and could have obtained a 
copy of the decision online. Id. at 14894 n.20.  Even with the delay in actual 
notice, the FCC pointed out that TVCN could have filed its two-page 
reconsideration petition “on February 4, 2010, the final day of the 30-day 
filing period.” Id. at 14894 n.20.  Accordingly, the FCC concluded that 
there was “no basis” for granting TVCN’s extension request or considering 
its petition for reconsideration. Id. at 14894 at (¶ 8).
On November 14, 2010, TVCN appealed the Installment Payment 
Order and Reconsideration Dismissal Order to this Court. 
ARGUMENT 
I.  THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS TVCN’S APPEAL OF THE 
INSTALLMENT PAYMENT ORDER FOR LACK OF 
   JURISDICTION.  
TVCN’s appeal from the Installment Payment Order was filed over 
19 months after the deadline for appealing that order passed.  Because the 
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 11 of 19
12
appeal was untimely filed, the Court should dismiss it for lack of 
jurisdiction.
Section 402(b)(5) gives this Court exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate 
appeals by “the holder of any . . . station license which has been . . . revoked 
by the Commission.” 47 U.S.C. § 402(b)(5).  This Court has held that 
section 402(b) governs judicial challenges by a licensee to the cancellation 
of its licenses for failure to make timely installment payments. Nextwave 
Personal Commc’ns, Inc. v. FCC, 254 F.3d 130, 140 (D.C. Cir. 2001), aff’d,
537 U.S. 293 (2003).  The Court reasoned that “[e]ven if the Commission 
did not formally ‘revoke’ [the] licenses, that is certainly the effect of the 
license cancellation. . . .” Id.; see also N. Am. Catholic Educ. Programming 
Found. v. FCC, 437 F.3d 1206, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Court’s jurisdiction 
under section 402(b) “involve[s] issues ‘ancillary’ to the grants or denials of 
licenses,” including waiver decisions related to licensing).  
To properly invoke this Court’s jurisdiction to review an FCC order 
under section 402(b), an aggrieved party must file a notice of appeal within 
30 days of the date of public notice of that order.  47 U.S.C. § 402(c).  “The 
time limit imposed by 47 U.S.C. § 402(c) is jurisdictional, i.e., if the appeal 
is not filed in accordance with the statutory terms, ‘it must be dismissed.’”  
Waterway Comm’cns Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 851 F.2d 401, 405 (D.C. Cir. 1988) 
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 12 of 19
13
(quoting Nat’l Black Media Coal. v. FCC, 760 F.2d 1297, 1298 (D.C. Cir. 
1985)); accord Freeman Eng’g Assoc. Inc. v. FCC, 103 F.3d 169, 177 (D.C. 
Cir. 1997).  See also N. Am. Catholic Programming, 437 F.3d at 1208, 1210 
(dismissing appeal filed 32 days after public notice).
5
  Consistent with that 
bright-line jurisdictional limitation, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 
26(b)(1) provides, subject to exceptions not relevant here, that “court[s] may 
not extend the time to file . . . a notice of appeal.”
The FCC gave public notice of the Installment Payment Order on
January 5, 2010, the date the order was released, see 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(b)(2).
Accordingly, the 30-day window prescribed by section 402(c) for filing a 
notice of appeal from the Installment Payment Order closed on February 4, 
2010. See 47 U.S.C. § 402(c).  TVCN did not, however, file its notice of 
appeal from the Installment Payment Order until November 14, 2011 — 
more than 19 months past the statutory deadline.
6
  The Court thus lacks 
jurisdiction to review that order.
5
As this Court has pointed out, “[s]ection 402(c) makes public notice, not 
private notice, the operative event for purposes of the running of the 
statutory filing period, and it makes no exception for excusable failure to file 
within thirty days of proper public notice.” Nat’l Black Media Coal, 760 
F.2d at 1299.  Accordingly, the Court has refused to accept a late-filed 
notice of appeal that allegedly was caused by the FCC’s failure to provide 
appellants with personal notice of its decision. Id.
6
It is immaterial that TVCN incorrectly styled its notice as a “Petition for 
Review.” See N. Am. Catholic Programming, 437 F.3d at 1208-09.  Indeed, 
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 13 of 19
14
The FCC’s dismissal of TVCN’s untimely petition for reconsideration 
did not open up a new 30-day window for filing an appeal from the 
Installment Payment Order.  It is well-established that only a timely petition 
for administrative reconsideration tolls a statutory time period for the filing 
of a judicial appeal. Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline v. FERC, 475 F.3d 
330, 334-35 (D.C. Cir. 2006); see also Nat’l Bank of Davis. v. Office of 
Comptroller of Currency, 725 F.2d 1390, 1391-92 (D.C. Cir. 1984); 
Bowman v. Lopereno, 311 U.S. 262, 266 (1940) (“The filing of an untimely 
petition for rehearing which is not entertained or considered on its merits . . . 
can not operate to extend the time for appeal.’”).  And, as shown below, 
TVCN’s reconsideration petition (like its appeal) was untimely filed.  Were 
the rule otherwise, any party challenging an FCC order governed by section 
402(b) could avoid the 30-day statutory window for appeals simply by filing 
with the agency an untimely petition for administrative reconsideration and 
then filing a notice of appeal within 30 days of the reconsideration order 
dismissing that untimely petition.  
To properly challenge the Installment Payment Order, TVCN, within 
the 30-day period ending on February 4, 2010, was required to either: (1) file 
TVCN characterized this case as an “appeal” in the body of its filing, and 
cited section 402(c) (applicable to appeals under section 402(b)(5)) as 
authority for the filing. See TVCN Petition for Review at 1, 2.
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 14 of 19
15
a petition for agency reconsideration, which would have rendered the 
Installment Payment Order nonfinal and tolled the time period for filing an 
appeal until the FCC acted on reconsideration;
7
 or (2) file a notice of appeal 
with this Court. It did neither, and its appeal from the Installment Payment 
Order therefore should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.     
II.  THE COURT SHOULD SUMMARILY AFFIRM THE 
RECONSIDERATION DISMISSAL ORDER.
This Court will summarily affirm an administrative order without 
briefing and argument where “the merits of [the] case are so clear that 
expedited action is justified.” Taxpayers Watchdog, 819 F.2d at 297.  As 
shown below, the claim that the FCC erred by enforcing the deadline 
prescribed in 47 U.S.C. § 405(a) for filing of petitions for agency 
reconsideration is so clearly meritless that the Court should summarily 
affirm the Reconsideration Dismissal Order.
Section 405(a) imposes a 30-day deadline for the filing of petitions for 
reconsideration.  47 U.S.C. § 405(a); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.  TVCN 
indisputably missed that statutory filing deadline.  It waited until February 
18, 2011 to seek reconsideration, while any such petition was due two weeks 
earlier on February 4. See p. 10, supra.  In the absence of “extraordinary 
circumstances,” the Court has made clear that the FCC must enforce the 
7
See, e.g., Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 392 (1995).
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 15 of 19
16
statutory filing deadline and dismiss untimely reconsideration petitions.
E.g., Reuters Ltd. v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946, 952 (D.C. Cir. 1986); see Virgin 
Islands Tel. Corp. v. FCC, 989 F.2d 1231, 1237 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (Court has 
“discouraged the Commission from accepting [untimely reconsideration] 
petitions in the absence of extremely unusual circumstances.”).   
Here, TVCN points to no circumstances – let alone “extraordinary 
circumstances” – that would justify compelling the FCC to exempt TVCN 
from complying with the statutory filing deadline.  Although TVCN 
suggests it did not know that the FCC had issued its Installment Payment 
Order until February 3, 2011, TVCN does not claim, let alone demonstrate, 
that any alleged lack of notice was the result of agency error.
Reconsideration Dismissal Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14893 (¶ 7).  On January 
5, 2010, the day the Installment Payment Order was released, the FCC e-
mailed TVCN a copy of the Installment Payment Order to the address that 
TVCN had provided to the agency.  Id. at 14892 (¶ 4).  On January 6, 2010,
the FCC announced the release of the order in its Daily Digest and made the 
Installment Payment Order publicly available on its website. Id. at 14894 
n.20.  That same day, the FCC sent TVCN another copy of the Installment
Payment Order by certified mail to the address listed on its application for 
review and, two days later, USPS left TVCN a notice at its business address 
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 16 of 19
17
that the certified mail was ready for delivery.  Id. at 14892 (¶ 4).  Yet TVCN 
did not file its reconsideration petition until February 18, 2011 – two weeks 
after the February 4, 2011 deadline for seeking administrative 
reconsideration had passed.
To the extent that TVCN was unaware of the public release of the 
Installment Payment Order, that is solely attributable to its own failure to: 
(1) read its e-mail messages; (2) timely monitor and sign for mail delivered 
by the USPS,
8
 and (3) check the FCC’s website for the status of its waiver 
request.  That lack of diligence does not qualify as “extraordinary 
circumstances” justifying a departure from the statutorily prescribed 
deadline for seeking administrative reconsideration. E.g., Reuters, 781 F.2d 
at 952; Virgin Islands Tel. Corp., 989 F.2d at 1237.
Because TVCN has no colorable argument that the FCC erred in 
dismissing the company’s untimely petition for reconsideration, the Court 
should summarily affirm the Reconsideration Dismissal Order.
9
8
TVCN argues that it did not sign for the certified mail because its Chief 
Executive Officer was “away from the office during the month of January.”  
TVCN Petition at 1.  TVCN, however, does not explain why it did not 
arrange for someone else to monitor and sign for TVCN’s mail during its 
CEO’s extended absence from the office.
9
This Court has held that a waiver is warranted only where the delay in 
notification makes it “impossible” for the party filing a reconsideration 
petition to comply with the section 405(a) filing deadline. A/B Financial, 
Inc. v. FCC, 76 F.3d 1244, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Table).  That is not the 
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 17 of 19
18
CONCLUSION
 The Court should dismiss TVCN’s untimely appeal of the Installment
Payment Order for lack of jurisdiction, and should summarily affirm the 
Reconsideration Dismissal Order.
      Respectfully submitted,    
      Austin C. Schlick 
      General Counsel 
      Petr Karnjia 
      Deputy General Counsel 
      Richard K. Welch 
      Deputy Associate General 
            Counsel 
      /s/ Laurel R. Bergold 
      Laurel R. Bergold, 
      Counsel 
              Federal Communications Commission 
    Washington D.C. 20554  
     (202) 418-1747 
December 21, 2011     
case here.  TVCN acknowledged that, by no later than February 3, 2011, it 
had received actual notice of the Installment Payment Order. Yet TVCN 
inexplicably chose not to file its reconsideration petition (which was less 
than two pages long) the following day – the last day of the 30-day filing 
period.  Instead, it waited more than a week, belatedly seeking 
reconsideration on February 16. Reconsideration Dismissal Order, 26 FCC 
Rcd at 14894 n.20.
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 18 of 19
11-1443
    
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 
TV Communications Network, Inc., Appellant 
v.
Federal Communications Commission and the United States of 
America, Appellee.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Laurel R. Bergold, hereby certify that on December 22, 2011, I 
electronically filed the foregoing Motion for Dismissal and Summary 
Affirmance with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by using the CM/ECF system.  
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by 
the CM/ECF system.   
Some of the participants in the case, denoted with asterisks below, are not 
CM/ECF users.  I certify further that I have directed that copies of the 
foregoing document be mailed by First-Class Mail to those persons, unless 
another attorney at the same mailing address is receiving electronic service. 
*John G. Nelson 
1624 Market Street, Suite 202 
Denver, CO 80202 
Counsel for: TV Communications 
Network, Inc. 
Catherine G. O’Sullivan 
Nancy C. Garrison 
United States Department of Justice 
Antitrust Division, Appellate Section 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C.  20530 
Counsel for United States
/s/ Laurel R. Bergold
USCA Case #11-1443      Document #1349270      Filed: 12/22/2011      Page 19 of 19