Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Petition of General Communication, Inc. for 
Waiver of Lower 700 MHz Band Interim and End-
of-Term Geographic Construction Benchmarks for 
Alaska A-Block License WQJU656  
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 16-402
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  February 28, 2018 Released:  March 5, 2018
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny an application for review, filed by the 
Rural Wireless Association, Inc. (RWA),
1
 of a Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) Mobility 
Division (Division) Order.
2
  In that Order, the Division granted The Alaska Wireless Network, LLC 
(AWN)—which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Communication, Inc. (GCI)—a limited 
conditional waiver of Section 27.14(g) of the Commission’s rules regarding AWN’s A-Block license, 
WQJU656 (Basic Economic Area (BEA) 171 – Anchorage, AK) (the License).
3
  Absent the waiver, 
AWN would have been required to serve 35 percent of the geographic area of the License area—which 
comprises the entire State of Alaska—by December 13, 2016, or have its end-of-license term and related 
70 percent geographic-area construction requirement accelerated by two years, to June 13, 2017.  In light 
of the combination of factors in this case set forth below, we find that RWA has failed to demonstrate that 
the Waiver Order warrants review under Section 1.115 of the Commission’s rules.
4
  We affirm and 
amplify the Division’s finding that strict application of Section 27.14(g)(1) here would frustrate the rule’s 
underlying purpose and that grant of the conditional waiver will serve the public interest, including by 
facilitating the introduction of wireless broadband services in BEA171.  We likewise affirm and amplify 
the Division’s finding that strict application of Section 27.14(g)(1) would be contrary to the public 
interest in this case, given the unique challenges of serving this rural Alaska BEA—including challenges 
that the Commission has broadly recognized in other contexts concerning Alaska.
5
1
 Application for Review of the Rural Wireless Association, Inc., WT Docket No. 16-402 (filed July 6, 2017) 
(Application for Review).  RWA is a trade association representing rural wireless carriers that each serve fewer than 
100,000 subscribers.  See Rural Wireless Association, About Us, http://ruralwireless.org/about-rwa/.
2
 See The Alaska Wireless Network, LLC, Request for Waiver of Section 27.14(g), WT Docket No. 16-402, Letter 
Order, 32 FCC Rcd 4728 (WTB Mobility Div. 2017) (Waiver Order).
3
 47 CFR § 27.14(g).
4
 47 CFR § 1.115.  
5
  See, e.g., Connect America Fund; Universal Service Reform – Mobility Fund; Connect America Fund - Alaska 
Plan, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 10139, 10162, para. 72 (2016) 
(Alaska Plan) (citing Connect America Fund et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
26 FCC Rcd 17663, 17829, para. 507 (2011) (USF/ICC Transformation Order), aff’d sub nom. Direct 
Communications Cedar Valley, LLC, et al., 753 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2014)).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
2
II. BACKGROUND
2. Section 27.14(g)(1).  In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted 
interim and end-of-license term construction benchmarks for certain 700 MHz band licensees.
6
  The 
Commission required Lower 700 MHz band A and B Block licensees to provide signal coverage and offer 
service over at least 35 percent of their license area by June 13, 2013,
7
 later extended to December 13, 
2016
8
 (Interim Construction Requirement), and to provide signal coverage and offer service over at least 
70 percent of that area by the end of their initial 10-year license term, here June 13, 2019 (Final 
Construction Requirement).
9
  Section 27.14(g)(1) provides that, if a licensee does not satisfy the Interim 
Construction Requirement of 35 percent, its license term will be reduced by two years, thereby requiring 
it to meet the Final Construction Requirement of 70 percent two years sooner.
10
  Further, if a licensee 
does not meet its Final Construction Requirement (whether or not accelerated) as required by Section 
27.14(g)(1), it will be subject to a “keep-what-you-serve” rule under Section 27.14(g)(2), whereby its 
“authorization will terminate automatically without Commission action for those geographic portions of 
its license in which the licensee is not providing service, and those unserved areas will become available 
for reassignment by the Commission.”
11
 
3. AWN’s Waiver Request.  On December 7, 2016, GCI requested a waiver of Section 
22.14(g)(1) on behalf of AWN,
12
 proposing alternative construction benchmarks based on population 
instead of geographic area; it also proposed related commitments for the License.
13
  AWN had acquired 
the License, whose area covers the entire State of Alaska, from the prior licensee in June 2016
14
  In its 
Waiver Request, AWN specifically proposed that it be permitted to satisfy the Interim Construction 
Requirement by covering 50 percent of BEA171’s population (i.e., 50 percent of the population of 
Alaska) by December 13, 2016, and the Final Construction Benchmark by covering 80 percent of 
BEA171’s population (i.e., 80 percent of the population of Alaska) by June 13, 2019.
15
  In addition, AWN 
committed to continue serving 80 percent of Alaska’s population for “five years beyond December 16, 
6
 See Service Rules for 698-746, 747-762, and 777-792 MHz Bands, Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 
(2007) (700 MHz Second Report and Order), upheld on reconsideration, Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 
and 777-792 MHz Bands, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 28 FCC Rcd 2671 (2013) (700 
MHz Reconsideration Order).
7
 See 47 CFR § 27.14(g).
8
 See Promoting Interoperability in the 700 MHz Commercial Spectrum, Report and Order and Order of Proposed 
Modification, 28 FCC Rcd 15122, 15151-52, para. 64 (2013).
9
 See 47 CFR § 27.14(g); see also 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15293-94, 15349, paras. 6, 
157.
10
 47 CFR § 27.14(g)(1).
11
 Id. § 27.14(g)(2); see also 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15348, 15349, para. 153. 
12
 Herein, we reference GCI and AWN collectively as AWN.
13
 Petition of General Communication, Inc. for Waiver of Lower 700 MHz Band Interim and End-of-Term 
Geographic Construction Benchmarks for Alaska A-Block License WQJU656, ULS File No. 0007499041 (filed 
Dec. 7, 2016) (citing 47 CFR § 27.14(g) (Waiver Request).  See also Reply Comments of General Communication, 
Inc., filed Jan. 13, 2017 (AWN Reply).
14
 Triad 700, LLC (Triad) was the original holder of the License.  See ULS File No. 0003382993.  Triad assigned the 
license to T-Mobile License LLC (T-Mobile) in 2014.  See ULS File No. 0006470607.  T-Mobile assigned the 
license to AWN in 2016 (the Commission approved the assignment of the License on June 22, 2016).  See ULS File 
No. 0006826907.
15
 Waiver Request at 8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
3
2018.”
16
  AWN stated that it would focus resources on “rural, but populated, portions of the state – many 
of which desperately need greater access to wireless broadband.”
17
  AWN also argued that “application of 
the rule would actually discourage rural deployment of Lower 700 MHz spectrum, frustrating the 
underlying purpose of the rule.”
18
4. AWN further proposed that, in the event it is unable to cover 80 percent of Alaska’s 
population by June 13, 2019, “or is not able to maintain this level of coverage for five years thereafter,” it 
would lose authorization to serve those geographic portions of BEA171 where AWN was not providing 
service by June 13, 2017.
19
  Finally, AWN committed to negotiating in good faith—during any renewal 
term—with any third party seeking to lease spectrum in unserved areas of BEA171.
20
  It asserted that the 
requested waiver relief would be appropriate under both prongs of the waiver standard set forth in Section 
1.925(b)(3)(i) and (ii) of the Commission’s rules.
21
5. The Waiver Request appeared on public notice for comment on December 12, 2016.
22
  
Two parties, AT&T Services, Inc., and King Street Wireless, L.P., filed in support of the Waiver Request, 
citing unique conditions in Alaska such as extreme weather and geography.
23
  One party, RWA, filed in 
opposition, arguing that a waiver grant would undermine “the underlying purpose of Section 27.14(g) . . . 
to prevent the warehousing of spectrum” and “would incent licensees to ignore their buildout 
obligations”; it also argued that no unique or special circumstances exist in Alaska warranting the 
requested relief.
24
  In reply, AWN noted that “RWA does not dispute that [AWN] is working hard to build 
out its license in Alaska,” and asserted that, given its “existing investment in nearby infrastructure,” it is 
best positioned to “introduce[] competitive services to the vast majority of Alaskans, including consumers 
in numerous rural areas.”
25
   
6. Waiver Order.  The Division issued the Waiver Order on June 6, 2017, finding that 
granting AWN a waiver of Section 27.14(g) pursuant to Section 1.925(b)(3)(i) and (ii)
26
—subject to 
performance and related conditions—would serve the public interest, and that strict application of Section 
27.14(g) would frustrate its fundamental underlying purpose “to better promote access to spectrum and 
16
 Id.
17
 Id.
18
 Id. at 9.
19
 Id. at 8.
20
 Id. (stating that good faith negotiations would include, “among other things and by way of example only, terms 
providing for reasonable market-based lease rates, term periods, and build requirements similar to those proposed in 
this docket and in . . . Section 27.14(g),” adding (see id. at 9) that, in the event the Commission makes a finding that 
AWN failed to meet the good-faith negotiations commitment, it “could subject [AWN] to loss of authorization to 
serve the unserved areas as of the date of the finding.”).
21
 Id. at 9 (citing 47 CFR § 1.925(b)(3)).
22
 See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Alaska Wireless Network Request for Waiver of 
Geographic Coverage Requirement for 700 MHz License in Alaska, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 13137 (WTB 
Mobility Div. 2016).
23
 See Comments of AT&T, filed Jan. 3, 2017; Reply Comments of King Street Wireless, L.P., filed Jan. 13, 2017.  
24
 Comments of the Rural Wireless Association, Inc., filed Jan. 3, 2017, at 3, 6 (RWA Comments).  
25
 AWN Reply at 2, 5, 6.  
26
 A waiver is appropriate under Section 1.925(b)(3) if the request meets the criteria under either subsection (i) or 
the criteria under subsection (ii).  Here the Division supported its decision with two independent sets of factual 
findings, i.e., that the waiver request satisfied each prong of the applicable rule.  See Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 
4730 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3)).  To the extent necessary, we clarify that reliance on either of these findings 
would support affirming that grant. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
4
the provision of service, especially in rural areas.”
27
  The Division noted the unique challenges of serving 
Alaska, including those observed by the Commission in other contexts:  its remoteness, lack of roads, 
challenges and costs associated with transporting fuel, lack of scalability per community, extremely 
limited satellite and backhaul availability, daunting weather conditions, challenging topography, short 
construction season, and widely dispersed population, as well as how the vast majority of the area in 
Alaska (i.e., the License area) is rural.
28
  In light of the totality of these features, the Division concluded 
that strict application of Section 27.14(g) to AWN would be contrary to the public interest.
29
  The 
Division thus concluded that, in this case, AWN satisfied both prongs of the waiver standard under 
Section 1.925(b)(3) of the Commission’s rules.
7. To ensure that the public interest benefits of the waiver would be realized by Alaskans, 
including those in isolated areas of the State, the Division established population-based benchmarks and 
imposed several related conditions.  First, the Division ordered that the waiver relief would be effective 
only if AWN could demonstrate that it provided signal coverage and offered service to at least 50 percent 
of Alaska’s population by December 13, 2016, and if AWN failed to meet this initial benchmark, its 
license term would be reduced by two years, to June 13, 2017, and its authorization would automatically 
terminate without Commission action for those geographic portions of the License area in which AWN 
was not providing service by June 13, 2017; those unserved areas would then become available for 
reassignment by the Commission.
30
  
8. The Division also ordered that AWN must:  (1) provide signal coverage and offer service 
to at least 80 percent of Alaska’s population by June 13, 2019; (2) maintain such coverage and service 
(i.e., to at least 80 percent of Alaska’s population) for a minimum of five years, commencing June 13, 
2019 (i.e., until at least June 13, 2024); and (3) negotiate in good faith with any third party seeking to 
lease or acquire spectrum in an area not served by AWN in BEA171.
31
  The Division specified that, in the 
event AWN fails to satisfy any of these performance conditions, its authorization for the License will 
automatically terminate, without Commission action, for those geographic portions of the License area in 
which AWN was not providing service by June 13, 2017—the accelerated end-of-license term for the 
License absent the Division’s waiver of Section 27.14(g).
32
  Specifically with respect to third-party 
negotiations, the Waiver Order states that, “[i]f the Bureau finds that AWN failed to negotiate in good 
faith, its authorization will automatically terminate, without Commission action, for that relevant 
geographic area of the License subject to the negotiation, and that unserved area will become available for 
reassignment by the Commission.”
33
  In addition, the Waiver Order required AWN to file, by June 28, 
2017, a showing demonstrating its geographic coverage area as of June 13, 2017, such that staff (and 
interested parties) may determine AWN’s served geographic portion of BEA171 as of June 13, 2017, in 
27
 Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4730 (citing 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15348, para. 153, 
adding that the Commission also stated that Section 27.14(g)’s performance requirements “will provide all licensees 
with incentives to serve more rural communities” and “are the most effective way to promote rapid service to the 
public, especially in rural areas” (citing 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15349, para. 155)).
28
 Id., 32 FCC Rcd at 4731-32.
29
 Id., 32 FCC Rcd at 4730.
30
 Id., 32 FCC Rcd at 4735.  On Dec. 27, 2016, AWN timely filed a notification of construction, demonstrating that 
it had exceeded this benchmark by covering more than 54 percent of the population of Alaska.  See FCC File No. 
0007601845.  Staff have reviewed and accepted this filing.
31
 Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4736 (providing for a limited exception, ruling also that, if AWN violates this 
continuity of coverage condition, “it must provide written notice to the Commission.”).
32
 Id.
33
 Id. (stating, see id. n.81, that “while AWN committed to negotiate in good faith only during a license renewal term 
(Waiver Request at 2, AWN Reply at 6), we are requiring it to do so during the current license term as well.  By way 
of example, good faith negotiations require, among other things, reasonable, market-based rates.”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
5
the event AWN fails to meet a waiver condition and becomes subject to Section 27.14(g)(2)’s “keep-
what-you-use” provision.
34
 
9. Application for Review.  On July 6, 2017, RWA filed its Application for Review, arguing 
that the Waiver Order does not meet the waiver standard under either Section 1.925(b)(3)(i) or Section 
1.925(b)(3)(ii) and should be overturned.
35
  Reiterating that the purpose of Section 27.14(g) is to prevent 
spectrum warehousing, RWA argues that the Waiver Order undermines that purpose by “allowing AWN 
to retain the exclusive right to serve the approximately 97.5 percent of the geographic area of BEA171 
that remains unserved more than seven and one-half years after the license was granted” and “will in all 
likelihood remain unserved even if all the conditions set forth in the [Waiver Order] are met.”
36
  
Disputing the uniqueness of Alaska as a basis for the waiver, RWA asserts that its members “serve other 
remote rural areas of the country that present similar challenges and these members have worked 
diligently to meet the Commission’s construction deadlines;” it also asserts that the challenges faced by 
Alaska providers “were well known” not only to the to the winning bidder of the License and its 
subsequent assignee, but also to AWN when it acquired the License in June 2016.
37
  On these grounds, 
RWA contends that the Waiver Order fails under Section 1.925(b)(3)(i).  RWA notes that the 
Commission specifically rejected population-based benchmarks for the licenses in this band, finding 
population-based benchmarks suitable only for larger Regional Economic Area Group (REAG) licenses, 
and choosing “instead to require carriers to maximize geographic coverage within their markets . . . .”
38
  
According to RWA, the Commission’s decision to adopt Section 27.14(g)’s “keep-what-you-use” rule 
took into account the fact that certain CMAs and EAs, such as BEA171, “might be too large or 
challenging for a single operator to serve,” and adopted the rule “to ensure that spectrum can be put to use 
in unserved areas by providers other than the licensee.”
39
 
10. RWA also argues that the Waiver Order fails under Section 1.925(b)(3)(ii) because, 
while “Alaska is large, rural, low density, and subject to weather extremes, it is not entirely unique in this 
regard,” and the Commission declined to adopt special build-out provisions for Alaska and other areas 
that present similar challenges.
40
  Moreover, RWA asserts, AWN could still continue to expand service 
within the License area absent the waiver relief, as “it would remain free to apply” to reacquire spectrum 
relinquished in BEA171 for reassignment under Section 22.14(j)(2), and the “only advantage AWN 
would lose is the ability to keep other providers from serving the unserved portions of BEA171.”
41
  
Giving AWN this advantage does not, RWA contends, “support either the public interest or the policies 
that underlie the rules.”
42
  Regarding the Waiver Order’s condition that AWN must engage in good faith 
negotiations with any third party that seeks to serve an unserved area of BEA171, RWA argues that it is 
34
 Id.  AWN timely filed this showing as a notification of construction (see FCC File No. 0007833825), but 
subsequently, at the staff’s request, re-filed the requisite showing as a modification application (see FCC File No. 
00078412141).  Staff have reviewed and accepted this showing.
35
 See Application for Review at 5.
36
 Id. at 6, 10.  RWA also introduces a new purpose underlying Section 27.14(g) for the first time in its Application 
for Review in this proceeding, asserting that the rule is intended to “provide competing service providers with an 
opportunity to put that spectrum into service in some or all of the areas left unserved by the licensee.”  Id. at 3.
37
 Id. at 7.  
38
 Id.
39
 Id. at 10-11 (citing, at 11, 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15348-49, paras.155-156).
40
 Id. at 10 (citing 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15349, para.158).
41
 Id. at 14 (citing 47 CFR § 27.14(j)(2)). 
42
 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
6
“another windfall” for AWN, rewarding it for failing to meet its buildout obligations.
43
  RWA asserts that 
the burdens of serving Alaska “would be magnified when faced by third party providers that would be 
required to expend not only the capital costs to provide service to sparsely populated unserved areas, but 
also incur the expense to acquire spectrum rights from AWN and pay AWN to lease spectrum.”
44
  
According to RWA, negotiations with AWN “would invariably drag on for months with no guarantee that 
an agreement would ever be forthcoming,” delaying service to unserved areas and new communities by 
potential third-party providers and imposing additional expenses on them prior to any offering of 
service.
45
  
11. On July 21, 2017, AWN filed an opposition to the Application for Review, endorsing the 
Division’s conclusions as to why the requested waiver relief is warranted.
46
  AWN also states that “T-
Mobile, and previous licensees, had not begun any construction in Alaska, leaving AWN with the 
impossible task of meeting the Commission’s build-out requirements on a highly compressed schedule.”
47
  
It disputes RWA’s assertion that the build-out challenges in Alaska are not unique, asserting that the 
difficulties “are both greater in degree and different in kind from those anywhere else in the nation.”
48
  
Noting the extreme temperatures that were cited in the Waiver Order, particularly in northern Alaska, 
AWN argues that “construction is only possible for about three months out of the year, a striking 
difference from the remainder of the country . . . .”
49
  AWN further describes difficulties getting electrical 
and construction equipment and other supplies requiring reliance on deliveries by helicopter, which 
“make[ ] build-out a very different endeavor [in Alaska] than in the remainder of the country.”
50
  AWN 
also emphasizes the vast size of Alaska, noting that, with a land area of about 1.5 million square 
kilometers, BEA171 is “more than twice the area of Texas” and is the largest BEA in the United States—
“more than 10 times larger than the second largest BEA”—with most of the area uninhabited.”
51
  Absent 
the waiver, AWN contends, “it would have been unable to invest in the wireless infrastructure needed to 
serve any area that it was not certain to be able to serve by June 13, 2017 . . . , even if coverage would 
have been possible soon thereafter.”
52
  According to AWN, a carrier “must scale” backhaul, retail 
capacity, billing systems, staff, and other associated expenses “to match future network deployments.”
53
  
It asserts that any geographic area that it “was not confident it would be able to serve by the June 13[, 
2017] deadline could not rationally be included in its near-term network plan,” as such area would have 
been, under strict application of Section 27.14(g), subject to applications and claims by other providers.
54
12. Regarding RWA’s argument that the Commission specifically declined to adopt 
population-based benchmarks for Lower 700 MHz markets, AWN reiterates that its state-wide BEA-
43
 Id. at 16.
44
 Id.
45
 Id. at 15 (asserting that the “requirement to negotiate in good faith is not the same as requiring a party to make a 
deal” and can thus carry its own difficulties) (citing Implementation of Section 103 of the STELA Reauthorization 
Act of 2014; Totality of the Circumstances Test, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 10327 (2015)). 
46
 See generally AWN Opposition. 
47
 Id. at 2.  
48
 Id. at 3.
49
 Id.
50
 Id. at 3-4.
51
 Id. at 4.
52
 Id. at 11-12.
53
 Id. at 12.
54
 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
7
based License area is “coextensive with REAG7, and larger than the large majority of REAGs in the 
United States.”
55
  According to AWN, “[t]his strongly suggests that Commission policy,” as reflected in 
the Commission’s adoption of population-based buildout requirements for REAGs, “is aligned with the 
[Division’s] decision to apply a strict population-based build-out requirement in this case.”
56
  AWN also 
disputes RWA’s claims that the Waiver Order does not satisfy the waiver standard under Section 
1.925(b)(3)(ii), contending that all the factors that make providing statewide 700 MHz commercial 
wireless serve in Alaska so challenging—in combination—“plainly constitutes a unique 
circumstance . . . .”
57
  AWN highlights its obligation under the Waiver Order to cover 80 percent of 
Alaska’s population by June 13, 2019, which, it notes “as a matter of simple arithmetic” means that AWN 
will be obligated to cover a large portion of the State’s rural population by that deadline; and if it does 
not, it would lose its authorization for any area not served by June 13, 2017, “potentially squandering two 
years’ worth of investment.”
58
    
13. On August 3, 2017, RWA filed a reply to AWN’s Opposition, largely reiterating the 
arguments in its Application for Review, emphasizing its contention that the waiver is not necessary 
because, “[b]y enforcing the rule as written, the FCC will open up vast unserved areas in [BEA171] to all 
competing service providers, including AWN.”
59
  RWA argues that infrastructure investment would, 
consequently, be made “in any event—either by AWN itself if there were no other applicants for 
reclaimed areas or by a competing provider seeking to serve the reclaimed area,” and that the 
Commission “should give its buildout rules, first proposed and adopted specifically for 700 MHz licenses, 
a chance to succeed.”
60
  According to RWA, AWN’s indication of an “ability and willingness to construct 
facilities” to reach the 80 percent population coverage benchmark “in just three years demonstrates 
conclusively that it was the failure of the prior licensees to undertake any construction for more than 
seven years after license grant, and not application of the Commission’s build-out rules, that would be 
responsible for any delays in extending service [to] rural areas.”
61
  RWA also contends that the Waiver 
Order “ignor[es] the constraints and policies embodied in the Commission’s general buildout rule”—
Section 1.946—which states that the “Commission will not grant extension requests solely to allow a 
transferee or assignee to complete facilities that the transfer or assignee failed to construct”
62
—and asserts 
that the Bureau’s recent “Buildout Notice” reaffirms this policy.
63
III. DISCUSSION
14. We begin with an important premise.  As with other Commission rules, requests to waive 
55
 Id. at 16.
56
 Id.
57
 Id. at 14.
58
 Id. at 12.
59
 See generally RWA Reply to Opposition, WT Docket No. 16-402 (filed March 16, 2017) (RWA Reply).
60
 Id. at 5 n.6 (refuting as speculative AWN’s argument that an applicant for reclaimed area might be motivated by 
the prospect of reselling that license to AWN, arguing that the Commission “has in place and strictly enforces a 
longstanding policy to prevent such greenmail attempts” (citing 47 CFR § 1.935) and the licensee of that reclaimed 
area would have to construct 100% within one year of grant of the license).  
61
 Id. at 4.
62
 Id. at 8 (citing 47 CFR § 1.946(e)(3)).
63
 Id. at 8-9 (citing Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Reminds Wireless Licensees of Construction Obligations, 
Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 4802 (WTB 2017) (Buildout Notice)).  RWA adds that the Buildout Notice also made 
clear that buildout extensions “are permitted only in two situations,—either ‘involuntary loss of site’ or ‘other causes 
beyond [a licensee's] control,’” neither of which, RWA asserts, is present in this case.  See id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
8
the requirements of the wireless construction rules must “meet a high hurdle at the starting gate.”
64
  In 
determining whether that standard is met, we must evaluate each case based on the specific circumstances 
that it presents.  Under Section 1.925(b)(3)(i) of the Commission’s rules, the Commission may grant a 
rule waiver when the following two requirements are satisfied:  (1) the underlying purpose of the rule 
would not be served or would be frustrated by application to the instant case, and (2) a grant of the 
requested waiver would be in the public interest.
65
  Under Section 1.925(b)(3)(ii) of the Commission’s 
rules, the Commission may grant a rule waiver when, in view of the 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.
66
  As discussed below, we 
deny RWA’s Application for Review and affirm the conditional waiver grant.  Although a waiver 
applicant need only satisfy either Section 1.925(b)(3)(i) or (ii), here, based on our review of the entire 
record, we are persuaded that the specific circumstances of this case support the conditional grant of a 
waiver and a finding that AWN has satisfied the requirements of both Sections 1.925(b)(3)(i) and (ii), as 
independent bases to support the decision to grant the waiver.  The totality of the circumstances specific 
to this case include, as discussed further below, the immense size of the License area, which covers the 
entire State of Alaska; extreme climate conditions, particularly in the northern portions of the State, 
resulting in an extremely short construction season; difficulty accessing many parts of the License area to 
deliver equipment and other supplies; lack of backhaul and other infrastructure; sparse population; and the 
extent to which the area covered by the License is rural.  
15. It is well-established that the Commission may waive a rule where the particular facts 
make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest,
67
 and it may take into account considerations 
of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis.
68
  In the 
700 MHz Second Report and Order, addressing the type of License subject to this Waiver Request, the 
Commission did not foreclose the granting of waivers in particular cases that satisfy the FCC’s waiver 
rules.  Rather, the Commission anticipated that the type of waiver that AWN sought might be necessary in 
certain factual circumstances for the Lower 700 MHz band.
69
  In fact, in the 700 MHz Reconsideration 
Order, the Commission explained that “[f]or specific cases of hardship . . . providers can seek waiver 
relief” related to their construction obligations.
70
  The Commission further explained that “requests must 
be well founded and not based solely on grounds of low population density,” and it directed staff to 
“consider these types of requests on a case-by-case basis,” as the Division did in this proceeding.
71
  
16. Turning to the merits, we find that the circumstances of this case support affirming the 
Division’s conditional grant of the Waiver Request under either Section 1.925(b)(3)(i) or Section 
1.925(b)(3)(ii) of the Commission’s rules.  We conclude that relief, with conditions, is warranted given 
Section 27.14(g)(1)’s underlying purpose of bringing increased service to rural areas (as recognized under 
Section 1.925(b)(3)(i)) and the particular challenges of bringing advanced wireless services to the License 
area, which, as mentioned, is vast, remote, and prone to extreme weather and other considerations that 
pose particular challenges to construction (as recognized under Section 1.925(b)(3)(ii)).  As discussed 
below, we have carefully reviewed the record before us and are unpersuaded by RWA’s arguments that 
the Division’s grant of relief to AWN “conflict[s] with FCC regulation, past precedent, and public policy” 
64
 See WAIT Radio v. FCC, 459 F.2d 1203, 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
65
 47 CFR § 1.925(b)(3)(i).  
66
 47 CFR § 1.925(b)(3)(ii).
67
 Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Northeast Cellular).
68
 WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (WAIT Radio I); Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.
69
 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15348, para. 153.
70
 700 MHz Reconsideration Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 2674, para. 6.
71
 Id., 28 FCC Rcd at 2675, para. 9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
9
or that it “establishes a harmful precedent which should be overturned.”
72
  Rather, in the context of the 
unique circumstances
73
 and the public interest considerations presented, the Division’s grant of 
conditional waiver relief accords with applicable law and policy, and promotes Section 27.14(g)’s core 
purpose, namely, to foster the provision of new wireless services, especially in remote areas.
17. Section 1.925(b)(3)(i).  We reject RWA’s claims that the Division ignored Section 
27.14(g)(1)’s core purpose in granting the waiver under Section 1.925(b)(3)(i).
74
  As noted above, RWA 
argues that the purpose of Section 27.14(g) is to prevent spectrum warehousing, and that the Waiver 
Order undermines that purpose by allowing AWN to retain the entire License area with limited 
geographic coverage.
75
  While we agree that one policy underpinning Section 27.14(g) is to discourage 
spectrum warehousing, it is not the only policy the Commission sought to advance in adopting this rule.  
Rather, in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission stated that Section 27.14(g)’s 
underlying purpose is “to better promote access to spectrum and the provision of service, especially in 
rural areas.”
76
  The Commission explained that Section 27.14(g)’s performance requirements “will 
provide all licensees with incentives to serve more rural communities” and “are the most effective way to 
promote rapid service to the public, especially in rural areas.”
77
18. We concur with the Division that the relief granted in the Waiver Order furthers Section 
27.14(g)’s purpose in the specific circumstances here by enabling AWN to bring new advanced wireless 
services to Alaskans living in remote areas of BEA171 that they might not receive absent the requested 
waiver.
78
  The Commission defines a rural county as one with a population density of 100 persons or less 
per square mile, but as the Division explained, Alaska has a population density of just 1.2 persons per 
square mile;
79
 it further explained that 28 of Alaska’s 29 boroughs and census areas (the equivalent of 
counties for statistical purposes)
80
 meet the Commission’s definition of “rural,” and 15 have a population 
density of less than half a person per square mile.
81
  Thus, to say that Alaska is “rural” is an 
understatement.  Moreover, as the Division noted, the population of the State is “far-flung” across 
663,209 square miles—more than twice the size of Texas,
82
 with less than three percent of Texas’s 
population.    
72
 Application for Review at 2.  See also id. at 16 (characterizing the precedent as “dangerous”).
73
 We emphasize that we find a waiver is appropriate based on the totality of the factors specific to this case.
74
 Application for Review at 4-5.  See also RWA Reply at 2, 3.
75
 Application for Review at 5, 8; RWA Reply at 12-13. 
76
 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15348, para. 153.
77
 Id., 22 FCC Rcd at 15349, para. 155 (emphasis added).
78
 See Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4728.  We also note that the Division properly relied on Section 309 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) to support the waiver grant.  See Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 
4735.  Section 309 directs the Commission to ensure “the development and rapid deployment of new technologies, 
products, and services for the benefit of the public, including those residing in rural areas.”  47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3).
79
 See Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4732; 2010 State and Local Census Guide; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 
of Population and Housing, Population and Housing Unit Counts, Alaska: 2010 (June 2012), at 7, 
https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-3.pdf  (Alaska Population Counts). 
80
 See U.S. Census Bureau, Alaska Boroughs and Census Areas, 
http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/estimates/pub/chap2.pdf.
81
 See Alaska Population Counts at 7.
82
 Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4732.  Texas comprises more than 268,585 square miles.  See FCC’s Geographic 
Information Systems Database, https://www.fcc.gov/general/geographic-information-systems.  See also U.S. Census 
Bureau, Guide to State and Local Census Geography - Selected Data from the 2010 Census, 
https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/guidestloc/select_data.html (2010 State and Local Census Guide).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
10
19. We agree with the Division’s finding that service in the License area, particularly to those 
Alaskans living in the remote areas of BEA171, could be delayed absent the conditional waiver granted in 
this case, and that Section 27.14(g)’s purpose to promote access to spectrum and the provision of service, 
especially in rural areas, would in that case be frustrated by strict application of the rule to AWN under 
the circumstances here.
83
  The Division’s Waiver Order requires AWN to have provided coverage and 
offer service to at least 50 percent of BEA171’s population by the December 13, 2016, interim 
construction deadline, which is 10 percentage points higher than the 40 percent interim population 
benchmarks for the Lower 700 MHz E Block and Upper C Block.
84
  The Waiver Order also requires 
AWN to provide coverage and offer service to at least 80 percent of BEA171’s population by June 13, 
2019, a benchmark 10 percentage points higher than the 70 percent population benchmark required for the 
Lower 700 MHz E Block, 
 
and a higher population-based benchmark than required in any other 
commercial service.
85
  Further, the Waiver Order requires AWN to maintain this 80 percent coverage 
until at least June 13, 2024.
86
  If AWN fails to meet any of these benchmarks, its authorization for the 
License will automatically terminate, without Commission action, for those geographic portions of the 
License area in which AWN was not providing service by June 13, 2017—the accelerated end-of-license 
term for the License absent the Division’s waiver of Section 27.14(g). AWN would in that case retain 
only what it had built as of June 13, 2017.
87
  
20. As noted above, AWN filed its required notification stating that it had satisfied the 50 
percent population coverage condition.  As also noted above, AWN filed the requisite showing of its 
geographic area buildout as of June 13, 2017, consistent with the terms of the Waiver Order, ensuring that 
third parties and staff are able to determine the coverage as of that date in the event AWN fails to meet its 
other waiver conditions.  
21. We reject RWA’s contention that, because the Commission adopted geographic-based 
benchmarks for Lower A and B Block licenses—which are based on Economic Areas (EAs) and CMAs, 
rather than on generally larger REAGs—the rule’s underlying purpose is undermined by the Division’s 
decision permitting AWN to use population-based benchmarks for BEA171.  The Commission 
emphasized that is was creating licenses in the Lower 700 MHz A and B Block “based on smaller 
geographic service areas, which would be more readily available to providers that tend to serve rural 
consumers,” and that the “keep-what-you-serve” allowed for the creation of even smaller areas.
88
  Given 
the considerations identified here, we consider waiving the applicable buildout requirements and 
requiring the specified conditions instead to lead to an outcome comparable to that which the Commission 
envisioned for these other types of licenses.
89
  Commission records show that the average size of a BEA is 
approximately 21,812 square miles, while the average size of a REAG is about 337,993 square miles.
90
  
AWN’s License area is, as the Division observed, larger than nine of the 12 REAGs, and it is the same 
83
 Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4735.
84
 Id.  See Interoperability Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 15148, para. 57 (all active Lower 700 MHz band E Block licensees 
may meet their interim construction benchmark by providing signal coverage and offering service to at least 40 
percent of its total E Block population.); 47 CFR § 27.14(h) (Upper 700 MHz C Block licensees are required to 
provide reliable service sufficient to cover 40 percent of the population of their license areas within four years.).
85
 Id., 32 FCC Rcd at 4735-36.  See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 24.203 (PCS), 27.14(s) (AWS-1).
86
 Id., 32 FCC Rcd at 4736.
87
 Id., 32 FCC Rcd at 4735-36.
88
 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15348-49, paras. 155-56 (emphasis added).
89
 See 700 MHz Reconsideration Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 2674, para. 6.
90
 See FCC’s Geographic Information Systems Database, https://www.fcc.gov/general/geographic-information-
systems.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
11
size as REAG7, which comprises, like BEA171, the entire State of Alaska.
91
  RWA also implies that the 
Division essentially has allowed AWN to use the waiver process to pick and choose the buildout options 
it likes best in contravention of the benchmark the Commission explicitly selected.
92
  We disagree.  While 
we reemphasize that our waiver process is not one to be taken lightly, we also reiterate that the 
Commission’s 700 MHz Reconsideration Order specifically anticipated the need for this type of waiver in 
certain circumstances, and in this instance, application of different buildout requirements and conditions 
will improve the prospects for the provision of service to consumers.
22. In the Waiver Order, the Division carefully considered the record before it and 
reasonably found that a waiver would serve the public interest by fostering the provision of new wireless 
services to Alaskans.
93
  In weighing the public interest, the Division correctly concluded that a waiver 
would afford AWN the needed flexibility to “cover remote areas more effectively, especially in 
underserved and rural communities where . . . national carriers do not have service.”
94
  Alaska ranks last 
in the United States for access to broadband service with a speed greater than 25 Mbps.
95
  The 80-percent 
population coverage requirement ensures that AWN must deploy in rural areas of Alaska.  As noted by 
the Division, even to achieve coverage of 68.8 percent of Alaska’s population, a percentage that falls far 
short of the 80-percent benchmark, “AWN would have to serve all 149 incorporated cities in Alaska—90 
of which have less than 500 persons (and 21 of which have less than 100 persons) . . . .
96
  The Division 
also noted that AWN committed in the Alaska Plan proceeding to bring new LTE service to more than 
100,000 Alaskans living in “remote areas”
97
 that are otherwise largely without LTE coverage, 
demonstrating that AWN will use its 700 MHz spectrum to provide this new LTE service.
98
  In addition, 
the Division appropriately took note of the Commission’s finding in the 700 MHz proceeding that 
population-based benchmarks are well suited to larger areas, and we agree with the Division’s finding that 
granting a waiver in the specific circumstances here is thus consistent with the Commission’s objective of 
ensuring intensive spectrum use, which serves the public interest.
99
      
23. RWA emphasizes its view that the waiver relief is not necessary for expansion of service 
within Alaska because AWN can reapply for any license areas it loses pursuant to Section 27.14(g)(2)’s 
91
 See FCC’s Geographic Information Systems Database, https://www.fcc.gov/general/geographic-information-
systems; FCC, Auctions, Maps, http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/maps/REAG.pdf.
92
 RWA Reply at ii.
93
 See Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4728, 4731, and 4735.
94
 Id., 32 FCC Rcd at 4733.
95
 See Nat’l Telecommunications & Info. Admin., U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, U.S. Broadband Availability: June 2010 
- June 2012, at 12, tbl. 5 (May 2013), 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/usbb_avail_report_05102013.pdf.
96
 Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4733 (citing U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the 
Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015, (release date May 2016), 
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk).
97
 “Remote areas” in Alaska are all areas of Alaska “other than the study areas, or portions thereof, that include the 
three major cities in Alaska with over 30,000 in population, Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks.”  Alaska Plan, 31 
FCC Rcd at 10160, para. 68 (citing USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17835, para. 529 n.876, 17834, 
para. 526 n.872; 47 CFR § 54.307(e)(3)(i)).
98
 See Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4734 (citing Alaska Plan Commitments Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd at 13322; 
General Communication, Inc. Coverage Map, http://gci.cellmaps.com/; Alaska Population Counts at 7; and U.S. 
Census Bureau, American Factfinder, Community Facts, 
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk#).  
99
 See id., 32 FCC Rcd at 4733.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
12
“keep-what-you-serve” rule once third parties have a chance to do so first.
100
  As noted above, however, 
we agree that, absent a waiver, the provision of wireless services to Alaskans in BEA171, especially those 
residing in particularly remote areas, could be delayed, particularly in light of Alaska’s uniqueness, which 
we discuss further below.
 
  Serving the remote areas of BEA171—areas with inordinately sparse and far-
flung population, and a notable lack of existing infrastructure—is extremely challenging.  AWN, with 
tailored waiver relief, is uniquely well-positioned to build upon its investments and experience in 
providing service to BEA171’s population and to quickly expand service to communities that might 
otherwise not receive service.  The Division therefore appropriately concluded that, on balance, the relief 
granted with conditions in the Waiver Order serves the public interest in Alaska.
24. In its Application for Review, RWA for the first time challenged the requirement that 
AWN negotiate in good faith with any third party seeking to acquire or lease spectrum in a geographic 
area of BEA171 not served by AWN.
101
  While RWA may consider this condition to be of little value, 
RWA’s comments about the availability of good faith negotiation opportunities do not in any way 
undercut our approval of the waiver relief granted by the Division.  The Division strengthened what 
AWN had proposed in its Waiver Request, requiring good-faith negotiations not only during renewal 
terms, but also during the remainder of the initial license term, and not only with respect to leases, but 
also with respect to any third party seeking to acquire AWN’s unused spectrum in the License area.
102
  
The Division also specified that, “[b]y way of example, good faith negotiations require, among other 
things, reasonable, market-based rates.”
103
  We have required good faith negotiations in many contexts,
104
 
and we stand ready to enforce this condition should any entity seeking to negotiate with AWN for access 
to unserved area in BEA171 encounter what appears to be negotiations that are anything less than “in 
good faith.”  To the extent that even negotiations conducted in good faith do not guarantee that an RWA 
member will be able to use the spectrum to supply service, the same would hold true of re-auctioning the 
spectrum, which is the outcome that RWA members seek in urging us to overturn this waiver.  For these 
reasons, we reject RWA’s argument. 
25. Section 1.925(b)(3)(ii).  Given, among other considerations, the immense size of the 
License area (covering the entire state of Alaska), extreme climate conditions that result in an extremely 
short construction season, difficulty accessing many parts of the License area to deliver equipment and 
other supplies, the lack of backhaul and other infrastructure, sparse and far-flung population, and (as 
mentioned above) the extent to which the area covered by the License is rural, we also agree with the 
Division’s findings that, “in view of the unique challenges of serving Alaska . . . , strict application of 
Section 27.14(g) here would be contrary to the public interest.”
105
  RWA disputes the uniqueness of 
Alaska as a basis for the waiver, asserting that its members “serve other remote rural areas of the country 
that present similar challenges and these members have worked diligently to meet the Commission’s 
100
 See Application for Review at 11-13; RWA Reply at 4-6.
101
 See Application for Review at 14-16; Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4736.  AWN had voluntarily committed in 
support of its Waiver Request to negotiate in good faith with any third party seeking to lease spectrum in any area 
not being served by AWN.  See Waiver Request at 8-9.  In its Reply Comments, RWA did not challenge this 
commitment as being of little value.
102
 See Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4736.
103
 Id., 32 FCC Rcd at 4736 n.81.
104
 E.g., 47 CFR §§ 27.1216(b) (negotiations between BRS and grandfathered EBS licensees), 20.23(a) (negotiations 
regarding deployment of a Contraband Interdiction System in a correctional facility), 51.301(a), (b) (negotiations 
between an incumbent local exchange carrier and a requesting telecommunications carrier regarding interconnection 
and other specified agreements), 90.677 (800 MHz transition to separate cellular and non-cellular operations), and 
101.73 (relocation of fixed service licensees from the AWS bands).
105
 See Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4730.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
13
construction deadlines.”
106
  While RWA’s members may have worked diligently to meet their buildout 
deadlines in difficult license areas, we disagree that Alaska is not unique.  The challenges of bringing 
widespread service to Alaska are not present in any other state to the same degree, and, as the Division 
stated, “the many unique circumstances attendant to serving BEA171 . . . make it impracticable to meet 
the applicable geographic construction requirements.”
107
  
26. In the Alaska Plan, the Commission found that carriers in Alaska face unique conditions 
due to “its remoteness, lack of roads, challenges and costs associated with transporting fuel, lack of 
scalability per community, satellite and backhaul availability, extreme weather conditions, challenging 
topography, and short construction season.”
108
  The Division delineated additional details about Alaska, 
explaining that it is “a land of atypical geography, with hundreds of islands, many undeveloped, vast 
mountain ranges, including America’s highest peak, Denali, and a mean winter temperature of 4° F (-13° 
F in the north, with certain parts averaging -20 to -30° F).
109
  The Division also observed that “[t]ravel in 
Alaska can be extraordinarily difficult:  many areas can only be reached by aircraft,
110
 and others only by 
Alaska’s famed ice roads in the winter months.”
111
  
27. In view of that combination of unique circumstances, we agree with the Division that 
strict application of Section 27.14(g) would be contrary to the public interest.  In addition, we find that the 
unique facts presented by AWN fit within the ambit of “specific cases of hardship” envisioned by the 
Commission in the 700 MHz Reconsideration Order as potential grounds for waiving construction 
requirements based on geographic benchmarks.
112
  
106
 Application for Review at 7.
107
 Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4731.
108
 See supra note 5.  
109
 Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4731-32 (citing Western Regional Climate Center, Climate of Alaska, 
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/narratives/ALASKA.htm; National Park Service, Denali, 
https://www.nps.gov/dena/index.htm; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate at a Glance, 
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/; and University of California Museum of Paleontology, The Tundra Biome, 
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/biomes/tundra.php#arctic).
110
 Id., 32 FCC Rcd at 4732 (citing Alaska Public Lands Information Center, Statewide FAQs, 
https://www.alaskacenters.gov/faqs.cfm#CP_JUMP_15483; State of Alaska, Transportation, 
http://alaska.gov/kids/learn/transportation.htm).
111
 Id. (citing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Land – 
Roads, http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/detect/land-road.shtml?page=land).
112
 700 MHz Reconsideration Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 2674, para. 6.  In a recent ex parte filing, RWA argues that the 
Division’s decision to deny a licensee’s request for a population-based alternative final benchmark for two Lower 
700 MHz band licenses in American Samoa where, according to RWA, the buildout challenges are “virtually 
identical to those faced by AWN” here, “mandate that RWA’s application for review be granted” in the instant case.  
Ex Parte Letter from Caressa D. Bennet, General Counsel, RWA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT 
Docket No. 16-402, at 2 (filed Nov. 30, 2017) (citing AST Telecom, LLC d/b/a Bluesky, Request for Waiver of 
Interim and Final Geographic Construction Benchmarks for Lower 700 MHz Band A and B Block Licenses 
WQJQ800 and WQOU674 in American Samoa, ULS File Nos. 0007595216 and 0007597075, 32 FCC Rcd 9307 
(WTB Mobility Div. 2017)).  See also id. at 1 (asserting that the circumstances in the instant case are “far less 
compelling than those involved in the Bluesky decision”).  RWA asserts that AWN and Bluesky are similarly 
situated and that AT&T’s waiver request should be denied for the same reasons as the Bureau articulated in its 
decision to deny a waiver to Bluesky.  In its effort to lump together Alaska and American Samoa for purposes of 
assessing requests for waiver of Section 27.14(g), RWA ignores a fundamental difference between the two areas:  
AWN’s License Area is 663,209 square miles in contrast to Bluesky’s American Samoan license areas, which cover 
about 551 square miles.  The challenges associated with buildout in this licensed area in Alaska are therefore much 
more significant than the specific areas in American Samoa covered by the Bluesky licenses, and in this regard, 
AWN and Bluesky are not similarly situated.  A waiver is thus appropriate in the instant situation. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
14
28. RWA argues that AWN’s ability to regain lost portions of its License area pursuant to 
Section 27.14(j)(2) also weighs against a waiver grant under Section 1.925(b)(3)(ii) because the “only 
advantage AWN would lose is the ability to keep other providers from serving the unserved portions of 
BEA171 . . . .”
113
  This concern is not controlling to our determination, however.  Rather, our concern 
under Section 1.925(b)(3)(ii) is whether, in view of the unique factual circumstances present here, 
application of the rule would be contrary to the public interest.  With our focus on the public interest 
standard, we conclude that the Division correctly found that strict application of Section 27.14(g) would 
be contrary to the public interest for purposes of its analysis of the appropriateness of grant of a waiver 
under Section 1.925(b)(3)(ii). 
29. We now turn to RWA’s claims that the Order establishes a harmful or even dangerous 
precedent.
114
  The tailored relief granted to AWN does not dilute Section 27.14(g)(1) or any other 
Commission rule.  As explained above, licensees must clear a high hurdle in seeking to obtain a waiver of 
our construction rules and, given the consequences of failing to meet that standard, the Commission has 
created appropriate incentives to comply with its buildout obligations.  At the same time, it has long been 
the case that the Commission may waive a rule when it finds that the purpose of the rule is better served 
by another, more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis.
115
  As to the License 
that is the subject of the instant Waiver Request, the Commission specifically envisioned that requests for 
waiver of Section 27.14(g)(1) would be considered case-by-case, as noted above.   We conclude that a 
waiver is warranted under the totality of the circumstances presented, including those identified in the 
Waiver Order.  We will continue to review any requests for waiver carefully considering the specific facts 
of each case, including the scope of the requested waiver.
30. Section 1.946(e)(3).  Finally, we address RWA’s claims that, despite AWN seeking 
waiver of Section 27.14(g)(1) solely pursuant to Section 1.925(b)(3), and the Division finding that a 
waiver was warranted under that rule, the Division was required to address the constraints and policies 
embodied in the Commission’s build-out rule, Section 1.946(e)(3), which states that the “Commission 
will not grant extension requests solely to allow a transferee or assignee to complete facilities that the 
transferor or assignor failed to construct.”
116
  RWA’s argument conflates the standard for an extension 
under Section 1.946 with that for waiver under Section 1.925(b)(3).  The Division explained that, as a 
general matter, the licensee is obliged to confirm that it can satisfy construction and service requirements 
in advance of acquiring spectrum,
117
 but this does not obviate the Commission’s waiver authority under 
Section 1.925(b)(3), and indeed, RWA cites no authority to suggest that Section 1.946 bars the Division 
from exercising its discretionary waiver authority under Section 1.925(b)(3).
118
  
31. In granting AWN a limited waiver with several performance conditions, the Division 
took a hard look at the combination of factors in this case, and we find that both AWN’s request and the 
Division’s decision were well-founded, “not based solely on grounds of low population density” and, 
moreover, not based at all on the prior licensees’ failure to construct.  We take this opportunity to remind 
licensees and prospective licensees of the policy underlying Section 1.946(e)(3), but we find that the 
policy is in no way undermined by the Division’s decision to afford AWN limited, conditional waiver 
113
 Application for Review at 14.
114
 See id. at 2, 16.
115
 WAIT Radio I, 418 F.2d at 1159.
116
 See RWA Reply at 8-9 (citing 47 CFR § 1.946(e)(3)).
117
 Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4731.
118
 We note RWA’s argument that “[t]his is not a case of hardship” under Section 1.925(b)(3)(i) because “the 
spectrum was allowed to lie fallow for seven and one-half years” by Triad (the original licensee) and T-Mobile, see 
Application for Review at 8, but the failure of prior licensees to construct is not determinative of whether a current 
licensee has satisfied the standard for waiver relief, which we evaluate case by case. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-23
15
relief here.
119
  We reiterate a crucial point stated above:  in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the 
Commission did not foreclose the granting of waivers in particular cases that satisfy the FCC’s waiver 
rules, and anticipated that the type of waiver that AWN sought might be necessary in certain factual 
circumstances for the Lower 700 MHz band.
120
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES
32. In sum and for the above reasons, we find that the specific circumstances and public 
interest benefits present here support a conditional waiver of Section 27.14(g)(1).  We therefore deny 
RWA’s Application for Review.
33. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 5(c) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 155(c), and Section 1.115 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR § 1.115, the Application for Review filed by the Rural Wireless 
Association, Inc. on July 6, 2017, IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary 
119
 See also Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 4736 n.81 (stating that the “waiver relief will not automatically transfer if 
AWN seeks to assign, partition, or disaggregate spectrum under the License to a third party.  Rather, the third party 
must demonstrate that the waiver relief should transfer, and the Bureau may, in its discretion, grant, modify, or reject 
such relief.”).
120
 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15348, para. 153.