FCC Web Documents citing 1.716

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-228A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-228A1.pdf
  • to ``initially'' refer disputed issues to certain company representatives, and if no resolution was reached within thirty days, either party was permitted to pursue other remedies. The ADR process failed to produce settlement of the disputed issues within 30 days after Dobson initiated the process. On June 24, 2003, Dobson filed an informal complaint at the Commission pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules raising each of the three claims that it asserts in the instant formal Complaint. Specifically, Dobson alleged that BellSouth: (1) failed to pay refunds owed due to BellSouth's use of shared facilities; (2) failed to pay refunds owed to Dobson for reciprocal compensation; and (3) failed to retroactively offer Dobson the ISP Order's rates in Georgia
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.pdf
  • addresses of record: (1) 860 E 4500 S, Suite 305, Salt Lake City, Utah 84107-3090 and (2) 8494 S 700 E, Suite 150, Sandy, Utah 84070-0541 as well as another known address - 2470 W. Majestic Parkway, Tucson, Arizona 85705. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. § 201-276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-17. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). G-Five LLC v. Global Access, LD LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, No. EB-07-MDIC-0026, June 14, 2007 (``Notice''). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. §
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.pdf
  • West Star Telecom'ns, LLC EB-07-MDIC-0049 Pinnacle Public 12/07/07 West Star EB-07-MDIC-0055 Paytel 12/20/07 West Star Defendant is variously referred to as ``West Star,'' ``WestStar,'' and ``Weststar'' in the various complaints - see Attachment. For consistency and ease of reference, we will refer to Defendant as ``West Star.'' 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services v. West Star Telecommunications, LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0049 (dated Apr. 4, 2007) (``Notice''). Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.pdf
  • Telecommunications, at its address of record, 650 S. Grand Avenue, Ste. 110/111, Los Angeles, CA 90017. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaint Served on WorldOne Telecommunications File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0051 APCC Services, Inc. WorldOne Telecommunications April 2, 2007 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. WorldOne Telecommunications, Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 (Apr. 2, 2007) (``Notice''). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.pdf
  • address of record, 15061 Springdale Street, Ste 206, Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1165. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaint Served on International Telecom Exchange File No. Complainant Defendant Service Date EB-06-MDIC-0052 APCC Services, Inc. International Telecom Exchange March 15, 2007 Group, Inc. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0052, (July 7, 2006) (``Notice''). See Appendix. Notice at 2.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.pdf
  • Ave., Pensacola, FL 32507. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaints against Telefyne Inc. File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0047 APCC Services, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 EB-06-MDIC-0084 G-Five LLC Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 01/31/07 none EB-07-MDIC-0019 PBS TelCom, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services, Inc. v. Telefyne, Inc., Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0047 (Sept. 18, 2007) (``Notice''). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.pdf
  • Issa, 360 W. 9th Ave., Escondido, CA 92029. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaints Served on GNCW File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-07-MDIC-0001 PBS TelCom, Inc. Global Network Communication West, Inc. 4/25/07 EB-07-MDIC-0027 C&M Global Network Communication West, Inc. 6/14/07 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). PBS TelCom, Inc. v. Global Network Communications West, Inc., Second Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-07-MDIC-0001 (April 25, 2007) (``Notice'') See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.pdf
  • Bureau Seeks Comments on Topics to be Addressed in Hearing Aid Compatibility Report, WT Docket No. 06-203, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 13136 (2006). Formal complaints are filed pursuant to Section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 208, and are governed by Sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736. Informal complaints are governed by Sections 1.716-1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-1.719. See 47 U.S.C. § 503. See 47 U.S.C. § 312(a). See 47 U.S.C. § 312(b). See Skype July 24 Ex Parte at 1-2 (requesting rule modifications so that complainants would be required to make only a prima facie case of violation, and the agency would be required to resolve all complaints within
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.pdf
  • of the informal complaint process, the complainant can then commence a ``formal'' complaint process, which resembles commercial litigation in court. Under section 415(b) of the Act, a ``complaint'' against a carrier seeking recovery of damages must be filed within two years from the time the damages claim accrues. It is well established that ``[a]n `informal complaint' filed pursuant to sections 1.716-1.718 of the Commission's rules constitutes a `complaint' within the meaning of section 415 of the Act and thus tolls the running of the two-year limitations period.'' Under rule 1.718, for purposes of continuing the tolling of the limitations period, the filing date of a formal complaint can ``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint involving the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.pdf
  • Award. See, e.g., Stipulated Facts at 8 (citing 47 U.S.C. 252(e)(6)). For convenience, we refer to the federal district court proceeding in which FeatureGroup IP seeks review of the Texas PUC's Arbitration Award as the ``Court Arbitration Review Action.'' See, e.g., Complaint. AT&T Texas simultaneously filed an informal complaint against FeatureGroup IP under section 208 of the Act and rules 1.716-1.719, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-1.719. The informal complaint challenges the lawfulness of the SLTS Tariff on several grounds not alleged in the formal Complaint, including that (i) SLTS is an ``enhanced service'' not eligible for inclusion in a Title II tariff; (ii) the SLTS Tariff violates 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(c)(2) by charging connecting carriers for the delivery of calling party number
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-641A1.txt
  • of this Consent Decree; ``Effective Date'' means the date on which the Commission adopts the Adopting Order. ``PIC Change'' is an order or request transmitted by an interexchange carrier to a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') requesting a change of a customer's primary interexchange and/or intraLATA carrier (``PIC''); ``Informal Complaint'' or ``Customer Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 C.F.R. § 1.716; ``Formal Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 U.S.C. § 208; ``Telemarketing agent'' means a person or entity, or employee thereof, who places telemarketing calls to consumers on behalf of Sprint for the purpose of inducing the consumer to change his or her PIC to Sprint. The Parties agree that the provisions of this Consent Decree shall be subject to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2158A1.txt
  • No. EB-01-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0004 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0008 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0009 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0011 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0012 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: September 14, 2001 Released: September 14, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications, CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc., Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc., CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services, Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc., CTC Telcom, Inc., Fairpoint Communications Corp., Focal Communications Corp., Intermedia Communications, Inc., Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2159A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ø Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. CTC Telecom, Inc. ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0016 ORDER Adopted: September 14, 2001 Released: September 14, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of our rules, Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (``Sprint'') filed an informal complaint against CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC''). On March 22, 2001, CTC filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in Sprint's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Sprint is required to convert these informal complaints into a formal complaint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2321A1.txt
  • No. EB-01-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0004 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0008 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0009 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0011 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0012 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: October 4, 2001 Released: October 4, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications, CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc., Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc., CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services, Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc., CTC Telcom, Inc., Fairpoint Communications Corp., Focal Communications Corp., Intermedia Communications, Inc., Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2428A1.txt
  • No. EB-01-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0004 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0008 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0009 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0011 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0012 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: October 17, 2001 Released: October 18, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications, CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc., Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc., CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services, Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc., CTC Telcom, Inc., Fairpoint Communications Corp., Focal Communications Corp., Intermedia Communications, Inc., Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2551A1.txt
  • No. EB-01-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0004 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0008 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0009 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0011 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0012 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: November 1, 2001 Released: November 2, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications (``Advamtel''), CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc. (``CFW''), Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc. (``CTSI''), CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Fairpoint Communications Corp. (``Fairpoint''), Focal Communications Corp. (``Focal''),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2661A1.txt
  • No. EB-01-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0004 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0008 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0009 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0011 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0012 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: November 14, 2001 Released: November 15, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications (``Advamtel''), CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc. (``CFW''), Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc. (``CTSI''), CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Fairpoint Communications Corp. (``Fairpoint''), Focal Communications Corp. (``Focal''),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2720A1.txt
  • Matter of AT&T CORP. and ALASCOM, INC. d/b/a AT&T ALASCOM, INC. Complainants, v. ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a ATU TELECOMMUNICATIONS d/b/a ANCHORAGE TELEPHONE UTILITY Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) EB-01-MDIC-0551 ORDER Adopted: November 20, 2001 Released: November 21, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On August 13, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.716, AT&T Corp. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Alascom, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Alascom, Inc. (collectively, ``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against Alaska Communications System, Inc. d/b/a ATU Telecommunications d/b/a Anchorage Telephone Utility (``ACS''). AT&T alleges that ACS has violated section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. §201(b), and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2721A1.txt
  • D.C. 20554 In the Matter of AT&T CORP. and AT&T of the VIRGIN ISLANDS, INC. Complainants, v. VIRGIN ISLANDS TELEPHONE CORPORATION d/b/a INNOVATIVE TELEPHONE Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) EB-01-MDIC-0552 ORDER Adopted: November 20, 2001 Released: November 21, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 10, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.716, AT&T Corp. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, AT&T of the Virgin Islands, Inc. (collectively, ``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation d/b/a Innovative Telephone (``Vitelco''). AT&T alleges that Vitelco has violated section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 201(b), and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2780A1.txt
  • No. EB-01-MDIC-0002 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0004 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0008 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0011 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0012 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: November 29, 2001 Released: November 30, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications (``Advamtel''), CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc. (``CFW''), Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc. (``CTSI''), CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Fairpoint Communications Corp. (``Fairpoint''), Focal Communications Corp. (``Focal''),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2920A1.txt
  • XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: December 17, 2001 Released: December 18, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1065A1.txt
  • H Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of AT&T Corp., Complainant, v. CTC Telcom, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-007 ORDER Adopted: May 7, 2002 Released: May 8, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above-captioned matter. On March 16, 2001, CTC Telcom filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1242A1.txt
  • 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of AT&T Corp., Complainant, v. CTC Telcom, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-007 ORDER Adopted: May 23, 2002 Released: May 24, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above-captioned matter. Since the filing of the informal complaint, AT&T and CTC Telcom have engaged in extensive settlement negotiations and have recently reached a settlement agreement. On May 21, 2002, AT&T filed a Consent Motion requesting dismissal of its informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2070A1.txt
  • In the Matter of CTC Communications Corp., Complainant, v. Verizon New England, Inc. and Verizon New York, Inc., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0001 ORDER Adopted: August 22, 2002 Released: August 27, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 9, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, CTC Communications Corp. (``CTC'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Verizon New England, Inc. and Verizon New York, Inc. (collectively ``Verizon'') in the above-captioned matter. On February 27, 2002, Verizon filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in CTC's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-210A1.txt
  • No. EB-01-MDIC-0002 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0004 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0008 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0011 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0012 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: January 25, 2002 Released: January 29, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications (``Advamtel''), CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc. (``CFW''), Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc. (``CTSI''), CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Fairpoint Communications Corp. (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2204A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0826 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0008 ORDER Adopted: September 9, 2002 Released: September 10, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: In November and December, 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., Independent Networks Co., Mark Twain Communications Company, and Northern Valley Communications, LLC (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs''), filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2340A1.txt
  • Corp. Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ORDER Adopted: September 24, 2002 Released: September 25, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., and Independent Networks Co. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2552A1.txt
  • Corp. Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ORDER Adopted: October 7, 2002 Released: October 8, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., and Independent Networks Co. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2697A1.txt
  • and conditions of this Consent Decree; ``Effective Date'' means the date on which the Commission adopts the Adopting Order. ``Preferred carrier change'' shall mean an order or request submitted by a carrier to a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') to effect a change in the customer's preferred carrier; ``Informal Complaint'' or ``Consumer Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 C.F.R. § 1.716; ``Formal Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 U.S.C. § 208; The Parties agree that the provisions of this Consent Decree shall be subject to final approval by the Bureau by incorporation of such provisions by reference in an Adopting Order of the Bureau. The Parties agree that this Consent Decree shall become effective on the date on which the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2758A1.txt
  • Iowa Communications, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ORDER Adopted: October 21, 2002 Released: October 22, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2925A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2925A2.txt
  • has established a 272 Compliance Team, including representatives from each SBC organization, group, business unit, etc. affected, or potentially affected, by the Section 272 Requirements, to address any Section 272 related issues and complaints. Obtained from the SBC BOCs a list of all FCC formal complaints, as defined in 47 CFR 1.720; FCC informal complaints, as defined in 47 CFR 1.716; and any written complaints made to a state regulatory commission from competitors filed during the first nine months of the Engagement Period involving alleged noncompliance with the Section 272 Requirements, including complaints submitted by competitors related to the provision or procurement of goods, services, facilities, and information, or in connection with the establishment of standards. · Allegations of cross-subsidies (no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3013A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3013A1.txt
  • Communications, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ORDER Adopted: November 4, 2002 Released: November 5, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-301A1.txt
  • was refusing to pay. Shortly thereafter, this Commission released the TSR Wireless Order, in which it resolved numerous issues relating to the propriety of LEC charges to CMRS carriers. After the TSR Wireless Order, the NCUC dismissed Concord's complaint. Independent of the NCUC proceeding, Metrocall filed an informal complaint with the Commission against Concord in August 2000 pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules. On April 6, 2001, Metrocall ``converted'' its informal complaint into the instant formal complaint pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules. Metrocall's complaint asserts two claims: (1) that Concord violates section 201(b) of the Act and Commission orders by charging recurring fees to Metrocall solely for the use of DID numbers; and (2) that Concord
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3182A1.txt
  • Communications, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ORDER Adopted: November 15, 2002 Released: November 18, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3305A1.txt
  • Iowa Communications, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ORDER Adopted: November 27, 2002 Released: December 2, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3414A1.txt
  • to fulfill its obligations under the parties' interconnection agreement to make payments relating to the exchange of certain traffic. Verizon filed its answer denying these obligations on September 25, 2002. On December 4, 2002, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Convert Case requesting that the Commission convert US LEC's formal complaint into an informal complaint as defined by section 1.716 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.716. In addition to this request, the parties asked that the filing date of the informal complaint be deemed September 5, 2002, which is the filing date of the formal complaint, and that the Commission extend the six-month period within which the informal complaint must be converted to a formal complaint under sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3467A1.txt
  • Iowa Communications, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ORDER Adopted: December 16, 2002 Released: December 17, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3492A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3492A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3492A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications v. AT&T Corp. ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 ORDER Adopted: December 18, 2002 Released: December 20, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Cedar is required to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-34A1.txt
  • Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of WORLDCOM, INC. Complainant, v. VIRGIN ISLANDS TELEPHONE CORPORATION d/b/a INNOVATIVE TELEPHONE Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) EB-01-MDIC-1158 ORDER Adopted: January 8, 2002 Released: January 9, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 28, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.716, WorldCom, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation d/b/a Innovative Telephone (``Vitelco''). WorldCom alleges that Vitelco has violated the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and the Commission's rules regarding the maximum allowable rate-of-return for local exchange carriers in 47 C.F.R. § 65.700 et seq. According
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-35A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-35A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-35A1.txt
  • No. EB-01-MDIC-0002 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0004 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0008 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0011 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0012 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: January 8, 2002 Released: January 9, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications (``Advamtel''), CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc. (``CFW''), Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc. (``CTSI''), CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Fairpoint Communications Corp. (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-360A1.txt
  • No. EB-01-MDIC-0002 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0004 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0008 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0011 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0012 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: February 14, 2002 Released: February 15, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications (``Advamtel''), CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc. (``CFW''), Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc. (``CTSI''), CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Fairpoint Communications Corp. (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-450A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: February 26, 2002 Released: February 27, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-597A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: March 12, 2002 Released: March 13, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-721A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: March 26, 2002 Released: March 27, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-822A1.txt
  • Inc.; AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: April 10, 2002 Released: April 11, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-910A1.txt
  • U.S. Postal Service first class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. For further information on the item, please contact Lynn Remly, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-2930. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-1.718. News Media Information (202) 418-0500 TTY (202) 418-2555 Fax-On-Demand (202) 418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov Federal Communications Commission ftp.fcc.gov 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 PUBLIC NOTICE ! ! #
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-960A1.txt
  • p Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of AT&T Corp., Complainant, v. CTC Telcom, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 ORDER Adopted: April 25, 2002 Released: April 26, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above-captioned matter. On March 16, 2001, CTC Telcom filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1083A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc., Complainant, v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 ORDER Adopted: April 3, 2003 Released: April 4, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1174A1.txt
  • Ü $ Ü Ü Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc., Complainant, v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 ORDER Adopted: April 17, 2003 Released: April 21, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-131A1.txt
  • the Commission's rules implementing the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988 (HAC Act), to examine whether public mobile service telephones, which are currently exempt from the Commission's rules implementing the HAC Act, should be required to be hearing aid compatible. APPENDIX: RULE PART ANALYSIS Part 1, Subpart E - Complaints, Applications, Tariffs, and Reports Involving Common Carriers, Informal Complaints, Sections 1.716-1.719. Description Part 1, Subpart E implements section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 208 permits any person to lodge a complaint with the Commission against a common carrier alleging a violation of the Communications Act. Subpart E establishes the rules for the submission and treatment of two categories of complaints against common carriers. These are ``Formal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-170A1.txt
  • v. AT&T Corp., Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications v. AT&T Corp. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 ORDER Adopted: January 21, 2003 Released: January 22, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: In November and December 2001 and April 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002 and July 19, 2002, AT&T filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-207A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc., Complainant, v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 ORDER Adopted: January 27, 2003 Released: January 28, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-22A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-22A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-22A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc., Complainant, v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 ORDER Adopted: January 7, 2003 Released: January 8, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-358A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit # Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications v. AT&T Corp. ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 ORDER Adopted: February 5, 2003 Released: February 6, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Cedar is required to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-371A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc., Complainant, v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 ORDER Adopted: February 6, 2003 Released: February 7, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4092A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4092A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4092A1.txt
  • D D Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Ketchikan Internet Services Complainant, v. City of Ketchikan, d/b/a Ketchikan Public Utilities Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-03-MDIC-0015 ORDER Adopted: December 23, 2003 Released: December 23, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 21, 2003, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Ketchikan Internet Services (``KIS'') filed an informal complaint against defendant City of Ketchikan, d/b/a Ketchikan Public Utilities (``KPU'') in the above-captioned matter. On May 16, 2003, KPU filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in KIS' Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, KIS must convert
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4110A1.txt
  • ) Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) Adopted: December 30, 2003 Released: December 31, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-449A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Qwest Corporation, Complainant, v. Cable & Wireless USA, Inc., and U.S. South Communications, Inc., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0038 ORDER Adopted: February 14, 2003 Released: February 24, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 11, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Qwest Corporation (``Qwest'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. (``C&W'') and U.S. South Communications, Inc. (``U.S. South'') in the above-captioned matter. U.S. South and C&W filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules on July 12, 2002 and July 15, 2002, respectively, denying the allegations in Qwest's Informal Complaint.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-478A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc., Complainant, v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 ORDER Adopted: February 21, 2003 Released: February 24, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-569A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 1 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications v. AT&T Corp. ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 ORDER Adopted: February 26, 2003 Released: February 27, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Cedar is required to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-67A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-67A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-67A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Qwest Corporation, Complainant, v. Cable & Wireless USA, Inc., and U.S. South Communications, Inc., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0038 ORDER Adopted: January 10, 2003 Released: January 13, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 11, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Qwest Corporation (``Qwest'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. (``C&W'') and U.S. South Communications, Inc. (``U.S. South'') in the above-captioned matter. U.S. South and C&W filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules on July 12, 2002 and July 15, 2002, respectively, denying the allegations in Qwest's Informal Complaint.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-787A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc., Complainant, v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 ORDER Adopted: March 14, 2003 Released: March 17, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-827A1.txt
  • 8bit M Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications, Complainant, v. AT&T Corp., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 ORDER Adopted: March 19, 2003 Released: March 20, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Cedar is required to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-836A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc., Complainant, v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 ORDER Adopted: March 20, 2003 Released: March 21, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1043A1.txt
  • ) Intera Communications Corp., ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-03-MDIC-0022 ) Telstar International, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: April 15, 2004 Released: April 19, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 30, 2003, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules alleging that Telstar International, Inc. (``Telstar'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Telstar replied to the informal complaint on August 16, 2003. Therefore, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Complainants were required to convert their informal complaint into
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1099A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1099A1.txt
  • ) Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) Adopted: April 26, 2004 Released: April 26, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-14A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-14A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-14A1.txt
  • D.C. 20554 AT&T Corp. and ) AT&T of the Virgin Islands ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0552 ) Virgin Islands Telephone ) Corporation d/b/a/ ) Innovative Telephone ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: January 6, 2004 Released: January 7, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 10, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules, AT&T Corp. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, AT&T of the Virgin Islands (``AT&T'' or ``Complainants''), filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation d/b/a Innovative Telephone (``Vitelco'') had unlawful earnings during 1997 and 1998, and requesting that Vitelco be ordered to return a portion of the overearnings. Vitelco replied to AT&T's Complaint on July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1809A1.txt
  • requesting such action within sixty (60) days after notice of termination or expiration of the automatic stay in Cable & Wireless' bankruptcy proceedings, rather than filing an entirely new formal complaint. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that Qwest's and U.S. South's Joint Request for Dismissal With Prejudice as to U.S. South IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1874A1.txt
  • Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) Adopted: June 24, 2004, 2004 Released: June 28, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2837A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2837A1.txt
  • ) Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) Adopted: August 30, 2004 Released: September 1, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2972A1.txt
  • coordinating its channel assignments and by extending its coverage into NWMC's protected Cellular Geographic Service Area (``CGSA'') without NWMC's consent. By agreement of the parties, the complaint was held in abeyance pending mediation and settlement discussions. By letter dated September 7, 2004, counsel for NWMC requested that the formal complaint be reclassified as an informal complaint (as defined by section 1.716 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.716). Counsel for Cingular informed staff that Cingular does not object to NWMC's request. We are satisfied that granting the Request to Convert will serve the public interest by promoting the settlement of this dispute and by postponing the need for litigation and expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3265A1.txt
  • and of this Commission until such time as may actually be necessary. We are not satisfied, however, that the additional safeguard requested by ACS is necessary and/or serves the public interest. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Claims Against ACS of Fairbanks, Inc. and ACS of Alaska, Inc.; Request to Convert Claims Against ACS of Anchorage, Inc. to Claims in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3394A1.txt
  • Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Informal Complaints filed by MCI, Inc. Against Various Local Exchange Carriers ) ) ) ) ) ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to 0057 File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: October 26, 2004 Released: October 27, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, MCI is required to convert its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3467A1.txt
  • ) Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) Adopted: October 28, 2004 Released: November 1, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3569A1.txt
  • 0.311, and 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727, Verizon's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Defer, is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111 and 0.311, Broadview's formal complaint of December 30, 2003 SHALL BE CONVERTED into an informal complaint with a designated filing date of December 30, 2003, and that the formal complaint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3871A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3871A1.txt
  • Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Informal Complaints filed by MCI, Inc. Against Various Local Exchange Carriers ) ) ) ) ) ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to 0057 File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: December 9, 2004 Released: December 10, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, MCI was required to convert its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3978A1.txt
  • 8 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Verizon, Complainant, v. Operator Communications, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-04-MDIC-095 ORDER Adopted: December 17, 2004 Released: December 20, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 30, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Verizon filed an informal complaint against Operator Communications, Inc., (``OCI'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 16, 2004, Verizon responded to written questions posed by Commission staff, and on September 3, 2004, OCI responded to Verizon's informal complaint. At the request of Commission staff, Verizon submitted a written reply to OCI's response on October 27, 2004.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-577A1.txt
  • ) Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) Adopted: February 27, 2004 Released: February 27, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-753A1.txt
  • delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice the Complaint against the Remaining Defendants IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the Complainants' formal complaint is converted to an informal complaint, and that the formal complaint and answer filed in the above-captioned proceeding satisfy sections 1.716-17 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1324A1.txt
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.716-1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, and 1.716-1.718, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint of Broadview Networks, Inc., File No. EB-03-MD-021 (filed Dec. 30, 2003) (``Complaint''). Joint Notice of Withdrawal of Broadview Network, Inc.'s Formal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.txt
  • forward the complaint to the common carrier(s) involved which, in turn, must either satisfy the complaint or answer it in writing within a time period specified by the Commission. Subpart E establishes the rules for the submission and treatment of two categories of complaints: (1) formal complaints, governed by sections 1.720 - 1.736; and (2) informal complaints, governed by sections 1.716-1.719. The informal complaint rules emphasize ease of filing by consumers and voluntary cooperative efforts by consumers and affected companies to resolve their differences informally. The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau's analysis of part 1, subpart E will be limited to informal complaints. Need: The informal complaint rules are designed to facilitate the efficient and expeditious processing of informal consumer complaints
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-19A1.txt
  • outreach and education initiatives and the performance of intergovernmental affairs on behalf of the Commission. As part of the review process, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau has reviewed all of the rules within each of the following parts that apply to ``the operations or activities of any provider of telecommunications service:'' Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.716 through 1.719 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints. Part 6 - Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities - Outlines the obligations of manufacturers and providers of telecommunications services to ensure that their equipment and services are accessible to persons with disabilities. Part 7 - Access to Voicemail and Interactive
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-328A1.txt
  • Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Informal Complaints filed by MCI, Inc. Against Various Local Exchange Carriers ) ) ) ) ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to 0057 File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: February 7, 2005 Released: February 8, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, MCI was required to convert its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-484A1.txt
  • Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) Adopted: February 24, 2005 Released: February 25, 2005 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-48A1.txt
  • Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Informal Complaints filed by MCI, Inc. Against Various Local Exchange Carriers ) ) ) ) ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to 0057 File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: January 10, 2005 Released: January 10, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, MCI was required to convert its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-4A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-4A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-4A1.txt
  • West Virginia, Inc., and GTE Southwest, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Southwest, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-04-MDIC-0096 ORDER Adopted: January 4, 2005 Released: January 4, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On July 6, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Operator Communications, Inc., (``OCI'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon California, Inc., Verizon Washington, D.C., Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon Delaware, Inc., Verizon Florida, Inc., Verizon Hawaii, Inc., Verizon Northwest, Inc., Verizon New Jersey, Inc., Verizon New England, Inc., Verizon Southwest, Inc., Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc., Verizon North, Inc., Verizon Virginia, Inc., Verizon South, Inc., Verizon West
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-4A1_Erratum.doc
  • West Virginia, Inc., and GTE Southwest, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Southwest, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-04-MDIC-0096 ORDER Adopted: January 4, 2005 Released: January 4, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On July 6, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Operator Communications, Inc., (``OCI'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon California, Inc., Verizon Washington, D.C., Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon Delaware, Inc., Verizon Florida, Inc., Verizon Hawaii, Inc., Verizon Northwest, Inc., Verizon New Jersey, Inc., Verizon New England, Inc., Verizon Southwest, Inc., Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc., Verizon North, Inc., Verizon Virginia, Inc., Verizon South, Inc., Verizon West
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-668A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-668A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-668A1.txt
  • Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Informal Complaints filed by MCI, Inc. Against Various Local Exchange Carriers ) ) ) ) ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to 0057 File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: March 15, 2005 Released: March 15, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, MCI was required to convert its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-6A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-6A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-6A1.txt
  • Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) Adopted: January 4, 2005 Released: January 5, 2005 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-783A1.txt
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.716-1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, and 1.716-1.718, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-018 (filed Oct. 10, 2003) (``Complaint''). The Complaint named seven defendants, and the file number originally assigned to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-228A1.txt
  • to ``initially'' refer disputed issues to certain company representatives, and if no resolution was reached within thirty days, either party was permitted to pursue other remedies. The ADR process failed to produce settlement of the disputed issues within 30 days after Dobson initiated the process. On June 24, 2003, Dobson filed an informal complaint at the Commission pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules raising each of the three claims that it asserts in the instant formal Complaint. Specifically, Dobson alleged that BellSouth: (1) failed to pay refunds owed due to BellSouth's use of shared facilities; (2) failed to pay refunds owed to Dobson for reciprocal compensation; and (3) failed to retroactively offer Dobson the ISP Order's rates in Georgia
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-672A1.txt
  • outreach and education initiatives and the performance of intergovernmental affairs on behalf of the Commission. As part of the review process, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau has reviewed all of the rules within each of the following parts that apply to ``the operations or activities of any provider of telecommunications service:'' Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.716 through 1.719 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints. Part 6 - Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities - Outlines the obligations of manufacturers and providers of telecommunications services to ensure that their equipment and services are accessible to persons with disabilities. Part 7 - Access to Voicemail and Interactive
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.txt
  • addresses of record: (1) 860 E 4500 S, Suite 305, Salt Lake City, Utah 84107-3090 and (2) 8494 S 700 E, Suite 150, Sandy, Utah 84070-0541 as well as another known address - 2470 W. Majestic Parkway, Tucson, Arizona 85705. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. § 201-276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-17. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). G-Five LLC v. Global Access, LD LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, No. EB-07-MDIC-0026, June 14, 2007 (``Notice''). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.txt
  • West Star Telecom'ns, LLC EB-07-MDIC-0049 Pinnacle Public 12/07/07 West Star EB-07-MDIC-0055 Paytel 12/20/07 West Star Defendant is variously referred to as ``West Star,'' ``WestStar,'' and ``Weststar'' in the various complaints - see Attachment. For consistency and ease of reference, we will refer to Defendant as ``West Star.'' 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services v. West Star Telecommunications, LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0049 (dated Apr. 4, 2007) (``Notice''). Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.txt
  • Telecommunications, at its address of record, 650 S. Grand Avenue, Ste. 110/111, Los Angeles, CA 90017. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaint Served on WorldOne Telecommunications File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0051 APCC Services, Inc. WorldOne Telecommunications April 2, 2007 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. WorldOne Telecommunications, Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 (Apr. 2, 2007) (``Notice''). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.txt
  • address of record, 15061 Springdale Street, Ste 206, Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1165. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaint Served on International Telecom Exchange File No. Complainant Defendant Service Date EB-06-MDIC-0052 APCC Services, Inc. International Telecom Exchange March 15, 2007 Group, Inc. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0052, (July 7, 2006) (``Notice''). See Appendix. Notice at 2.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.txt
  • Ave., Pensacola, FL 32507. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaints against Telefyne Inc. File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0047 APCC Services, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 EB-06-MDIC-0084 G-Five LLC Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 01/31/07 none EB-07-MDIC-0019 PBS TelCom, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services, Inc. v. Telefyne, Inc., Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0047 (Sept. 18, 2007) (``Notice''). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.txt
  • Issa, 360 W. 9th Ave., Escondido, CA 92029. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaints Served on GNCW File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-07-MDIC-0001 PBS TelCom, Inc. Global Network Communication West, Inc. 4/25/07 EB-07-MDIC-0027 C&M Global Network Communication West, Inc. 6/14/07 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). PBS TelCom, Inc. v. Global Network Communications West, Inc., Second Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-07-MDIC-0001 (April 25, 2007) (``Notice'') See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-917A1.pdf
  • roaming arrangement on the requesting provider's provision of mobile data serviceto its 4 own subscribers using a generation of wireless technology comparable to the technology on which the requesting provider seeks to roam. (47 C.F.R. § 20.12(e)(1)) ßA party alleging a violation of this data roaming requirement may file a formal or informal complaint pursuant to the procedures in §§ 1.716-1.718, 1.720, 1.721, and 1.723-1.735. For purposes of section 20.12(e) as referenced above, references to a "carrier" or "common carrier" in the formal and informal complaint procedures that are extended here, as applicable, will mean a provider of commercial mobile data services. ßRegarding data roaming disputes, the Commission will resolve such disputes on a case- by-case basis, taking into consideration the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-247351A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-247351A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-247351A2.txt
  • Telecommunications Bureau: Harry Wingo, (202) 418-1783, Harry.Wingo@fcc.gov Wireline Competition Bureau: Vickie Robinson, (202) 418-2732, Vickie.Robinson@fcc.gov Action by the Commission on April 27, 2004: Chairman Powell; Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, Martin and Adelstein. - FCC - ATTACHMENT RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU (CGB) CG Docket No. 04-175 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.716 through 1.719 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints. Part 6 - Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities - Outlines the obligations of manufacturers and service providers concerning accessibility to telecommunications service and equipment. Part 7 - Access to Voicemail and Interactive Menu Services and Equipment by People with Disabilities
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284321A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284321A2.txt
  • Tanzania $4,929,792 0.044.8 0.812.3 42.1 $285,127 0.0 2.6 0.0 3.9 93.4 $45,822 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 29,567,171 0.043.5 0.814.4 41.2 Togo $2,162,427 0.115.7 5.4 2.2 76.6 $419,239 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $4,457 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 21,808,403 0.1 3.8 6.4 2.1 87.7 Tunisia $18,911,511 0.059.7 1.410.2 28.7 $472,505 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 92.5 $4,954 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 94,789,114 0.048.7 1.716.2 33.4 Uganda $5,967,727 0.7 7.6 0.111.6 79.9 $196,100 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 98.2 $214,849 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 60,032,865 0.4 4.5 0.112.6 82.3 Western Sahara $0 $0 $0 0 Zaire $8,381,230 0.010.2 0.3 0.0 89.6 $397,179 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 98.4 $2,602,044 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 30,638,670 0.012.0 0.3 0.0 87.7 Zambia $4,861,900 0.014.2 2.146.6 37.1 $137,258 0.0 0.0 0.0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-135A1.txt
  • read as follows: § 64.1180 [Reserved] RULES ADDED Part 1 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows: 1. Part 1, Subpart E, is amended by adding section 1.719 to read as follows: § 1.719 Informal Complaints Filed Pursuant to Section 258 Notwithstanding the requirements of §§ 1.716-1.718, the following procedures shall apply to complaints alleging that a carrier has violated section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, by making an unauthorized change of a subscriber's preferred carrier, as defined by § 64.1100(e). Form. The complaint shall be in writing, and should contain: (1) the complainant's name, address, telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-205A1.txt
  • or any wrongdoing. The Parties agree and acknowledge that this Consent Decree shall constitute a final settlement of the Inquiry. The FCC will not initiate on its own motion any other enforcement action against MCI WorldCom, or seek on its own motion any administrative or other penalties from the Company, based on any informal complaint (as defined in 47 C.F.R. §1.716 et. seq.), or any claim or allegation arising out of purportedly unauthorized preferred carrier changes that allegedly occurred prior to the Effective Date. The Parties agree that the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree shall remain in effect for thirty-six (36) months from the Effective Date. Adoption of a Telemarketing Compliance Program Within 30 days of the Effective Date,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A1.txt
  • process for the private and common carrier microwave services, to the extent they are licensed on a site-by-site, frequency-by-frequency basis. This could potentially allow private frequency coordinators to perform certain licensing functions for designated spectrum bands, including, for example, maintaining the licensee database. Consumer Information Bureau We accept staff's recommendation that we review the informal complaint rules found at sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules. Staff concluded that these rules do not specify the documentation consumers must file with the Commission to complete their complaints and that they do not prescribe a specific timeframe for carriers to respond to an informal complaint. Staff noted that, as currently written, these rules lead to repetitive filings from consumers, unnecessary costs to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.txt
  • CIB is also initiating a federal advisory committee on consumer and disability issues. This committee will be designed to solicit ongoing input on a variety of subject matters including lifeline services, slamming, digital television, captioning and relay services. New Initiatives In the September Staff Report, the staff recommended that the Commission consider reviewing its informal complaint rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-718. The rules do not specify the documentation consumers must file with the Commission to complete their complaints. This leads to repetitive filings from consumers, particularly if the primary filing lacks sufficient information to resolve the informal complaint. Commenters agree that the rules should specify the type of documentation that a consumer must file with the complaint. The rules also do
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-185A1.txt
  • BTI; and Cheryl A. Tritt, Counsel for Sprint, AT&T Corp. v. Business Telecom, Inc., File No. EB-01-MD-001 and Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. Business Telecom, Inc., File No. EB-01-MD-002 (dated Feb. 15, 2001). To effectuate further the court's referrals, both AT&T and Sprint filed informal complaints against all of the other CLECs remaining in the Advamtel Litigation pursuant to sections 1.716-18 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-18. AT&T Second Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 5-6, 20-35; Sprint Complaint, ¶ 2, 12-23. This claim appears in Counts I, II, and III of Sprint's Complaint, which we consider collectively rather than individually, and in Count I of AT&T's Second Amended Complaint. AT&T Second Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 36-42. Complainants request that the Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-257A1.txt
  • In this Order, we deny the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company's (PLDT) petition for reconsideration of our Order canceling forfeitures against World Communications, Inc. (WorldCom) and the Manila Peninsula Hotel (Hotel). The Commission found WorldCom and the Hotel apparently liable for the forfeitures on January 23, 1993, following its investigation of an informal complaint filed by PLDT pursuant to section 1.716 of our rules. The Commission determined that, as alleged in the complaint, the Hotel apparently had charged one of its guests for making two telephone calls to the United States over international private lines (IPLs) provided to the Hotel by Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation on the Philippine end, and WorldCom on the United States end. The Commission further determined
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-19A1.txt
  • App. for Rev. in FOIA Control No. 21-211 (see LTC Consulting at 1-2 and n.7). E-mail from Thomas Allibone, LTC Consulting, to Laurence Schecker, Office of General Counsel (Sept. 22, 2001). See also e-mail from Thomas Allibone, LTC Consulting, to Laurence Schecker, Office of General Counsel (Sept. 25, 2001). Id. See LTC Consulting at 2 n.13. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-1.719 (informal complaints); 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736 (formal complaints). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 19 a b å æ 3 4 5 K ` a å 3 4 5 K a å � F „0ý „0ý „0ý „0ý „0ý „0ý „0ý ù ù û û ü ü '' õ ù ù
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-314A1.txt
  • U.S., 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963)); American International Development, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 86 FCC 2d 808, 815, ¶ 17 (1981) (noting that the existence of corroborative evidence is a factor to be considered in weighing the evidence presented). See also Contemporary Media, Inc., Decision, 13 FCC Rcd 14,437, 14,457, ¶ 39 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716, 1.717, and 1.718. The informal complaint letters are dated September 15, 1997, are printed on ITC's stationery, and include the name of ITC's president, William J. Nelson. We find credible the affidavit of Pamela S. Wickham, ITC's office manager during the time period at issue, that it was the company's customary practice to send letters out on the date they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-46A1.txt
  • in informal consumer complaints and on what, if any, additional information should be included in informal consumer complaints against broadcast station licensees and other non-common carrier entities. We also request comment on whether we should make changes to our informal common carrier complaint rules with regard to the types of information and documentation that should be required pursuant to Section 1.716 of our rules. Responses to Informal Consumer Complaints As stated above, we envision an informal consumer complaint process that emphasizes informal, cooperative efforts between consumers and companies to resolve disputes without extensive involvement by Commission staff. We also wish to avoid imposing cumbersome filing and reporting requirements that might deprive consumers and companies of non-adversarial opportunities to resolve their disputes.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-153A1.txt
  • person or entity engaged in a pattern of telephone calls or other transmissions in violation of the TCPA. 47 U.S.C. § 227(f)(1). Additionally, a consumer may request that the Commission take enforcement actions regarding violations of the TCPA and the regulations adopted to enforce it. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 on informal requests for Commission action and 47 C.F.R. § 1.716 on the Commission's process for complaints filed against common carriers. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2). 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(1)-(4). 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(1)(A). 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(3). See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CC Docket No. 92-90, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752 (1992) (1992 TCPA Order); see also 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. Initially
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-105A1.txt
  • Telecommunications Bureau: Harry Wingo, (202) 418-1783, Harry.Wingo@fcc.gov Wireline Competition Bureau: Vickie Robinson, (202) 418-2732, Vickie.Robinson@fcc.gov Action by the Commission on April 27, 2004: Chairman Powell; Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, Martin and Adelstein. - FCC - ATTACHMENT RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU (CGB) CG Docket No. 04-175 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.716 through 1.719 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints. Part 6 - Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities - Outlines the obligations of manufacturers and service providers concerning accessibility to telecommunications service and equipment. Part 7 - Access to Voicemail and Interactive Menu Services and Equipment by People with Disabilities
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-195A1.txt
  • 1997-1998 Monitoring Period The parties stipulate that Vitelco's access earnings exceeded its maximum allowable rate of return during the first six months of 1997. In addition, the record clearly indicates that Vitelco's access earnings exceeded its maximum allowable rate of return during the remainder of the 1997-1998 Monitoring Period, as well. Procedural Background On September 10, 2001, pursuant to sections 1.716-1.717 of our rules, AT&T filed an informal complaint against Vitelco alleging that Vitelco had earned more than its maximum allowable rate of return, and thus had overcharged AT&T for access services, during the 1997-1998 Monitoring Period. Also on September 10, 2001, AT&T and Vitelco moved jointly that the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') instruct Vitelco not to respond to AT&T's informal complaint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-284A1.txt
  • Statement'') at 2, ¶ 2. The Complaint uses the term, ``Tel-America'' to refer to either or both Tel-America or Tel-America's parent company, TransTel Communications, Inc. Complaint at 1-2, n.1. Informal Complaint, File No. EB-02-MDIC-0093 (filed Nov. 15, 2002) (``Informal Complaint''), attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 5. 47 U.S.C. § 208; 47 C.F.R. § 1.711. See also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-1.719. Informal Complaint at 9; Joint Statement at 2, ¶ 3. Response to Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-02-MDIC-0093 (filed Jan. 17, 2003), attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 6, at 9; Joint Statement at 2, ¶ 3. Letter from Alexander P. Starr, Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Karen Brinkmann, counsel for TelePacific, EB-02-MDIC-0093 (rel. February 26,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-207A1.txt
  • in their October 1, 2003 tariff filings to reflect that the PICC no longer applies to payphone lines.'' The Payphone PICC Order went on to state that the Commission ``ma[d]e no finding with respect to the application of PICCs prior to the effective date of this Order.'' OCI's Claim for Damages from Verizon On July 6, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of our rules, OCI filed an informal complaint against Verizon seeking (i) lost profits and (ii) refunds of the PICCs that Verizon assessed OCI from April 1998 to April 2001. OCI contended that the Payphone PICC Order's exemption of payphone lines from PICCs applies retroactively and renders Verizon's PICCs unlawful under sections 201(b) and 276 of the Act. After Verizon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-115A1.txt
  • Office of Engineering & Technology: Bruce Romano, 202-418-2124, bruce.romano@fcc.gov Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: Peter Corea, 202-418-7931, peter.corea@fcc.gov Wireline Competition Bureau: Carrie-Lee Early, 202-418-2776, carrie.early@fcc.gov Action by the Commission on August 3, 2006. - FCC - ATTACHMENT RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU (CGB) CG Docket No. 06-152 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.716 through 1.719 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints. Part 6 - Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities - Outlines the obligations of manufacturers and service providers concerning accessibility to telecommunications service and equipment. Part 7 - Access to Voicemail and Interactive Menu Services and Equipment by People with Disabilities
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.pdf
  • Bureau Seeks Comments on Topics to be Addressed in Hearing Aid Compatibility Report, WT Docket No. 06-203, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 13136 (2006). Formal complaints are filed pursuant to Section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 208, and are governed by Sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736. Informal complaints are governed by Sections 1.716-1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-1.719. See 47 U.S.C. § 503. See 47 U.S.C. § 312(a). See 47 U.S.C. § 312(b). See Skype July 24 Ex Parte at 1-2 (requesting rule modifications so that complainants would be required to make only a prima facie case of violation, and the agency would be required to resolve all complaints within
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1_Erratum.doc
  • Bureau Seeks Comments on Topics to be Addressed in Hearing Aid Compatibility Report, WT Docket No. 06-203, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 13136 (2006). Formal complaints are filed pursuant to Section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 208, and are governed by Sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736. Informal complaints are governed by Sections 1.716-1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-1.719. See 47 U.S.C. § 503. See 47 U.S.C. § 312(a). See 47 U.S.C. § 312(b). See Skype July 24 Ex Parte at 1-2 (requesting rule modifications so that complainants would be required to make only a prima facie case of violation, and the agency would be required to resolve all complaints within
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.txt
  • of the informal complaint process, the complainant can then commence a ``formal'' complaint process, which resembles commercial litigation in court. Under section 415(b) of the Act, a ``complaint'' against a carrier seeking recovery of damages must be filed within two years from the time the damages claim accrues. It is well established that ``[a]n `informal complaint' filed pursuant to sections 1.716-1.718 of the Commission's rules constitutes a `complaint' within the meaning of section 415 of the Act and thus tolls the running of the two-year limitations period.'' Under rule 1.718, for purposes of continuing the tolling of the limitations period, the filing date of a formal complaint can ``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint involving the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-201A1.txt
  • timothy.peterson@fcc.gov Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: Jane Jackson, 202-418-1545, jane.jackson@fcc.gov Wireline Competition Bureau: Kirk Burgee, 202-418-1599, kirk.burgee@fcc.gov Action taken on September 2, 2008: By Chairman Martin, and Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate and McDowell. - FCC - ATTACHMENT RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU (CGB) CG Docket No. 08-177 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.716 through 1.719 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints. Part 6 - Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities - Outlines the obligations of manufacturers and service providers concerning accessibility to telecommunications service and equipment. Part 7 - Access to Voicemail and Interactive Menu Services and Equipment by People with Disabilities
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-255A1.txt
  • See 2005 Closed Captioning NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 13222, para. 32. See, e.g., Verizon Reply Comments at 5-6; NAB Comments at 5-6; WGBH Comments at 20. See 47 U.S.C. § 716. We note that this is also consistent with the Commission's rules for filing informal complaints against common carriers under section 208 of the Communications Act. 47 C.F.R. § 1.716. In its Petition, TDI asked the Commission to develop an optional standard captioning complaint form. TDI Petition at 15-16. We note that our request for comments on the complaint process occurred prior to the Commission's adoption of the Form 2000-C. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently approved Form 2000-C Disability Access Complaint, for the filing of complaints pertaining
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-68A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-68A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-68A1.txt
  • wireless subscribers in 2006 and 270 million wireless subscribers in 2008. See CTIA's Wireless Industry Indices, Semi-Annual Data Survey Results: A Comprehensive Report from CTIA Analyzing the U.S. Wireless Industry, Year-End 2008 Results (rel. May 2009) at 15. . 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(a)(2), (c). . Currently, the informal complaint rules apply only to complaints against common carriers. 47 C.F.R. § 1.716-1.719 and 47 U.S.C. § 208. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that we handle informal complaints against regulated entities other than common carriers in a less structured manner, which results in a lack of predictability for consumers in filing complaints and for industry in receiving and responding to complaints. See, e.g., First Truth-in-Billing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 7530-33, paras.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-204A1.txt
  • information regarding this proceeding, please contact: Action by the Commission December 29, 2010: By Chairman Julius Genachowski, and Commissioners Michael J. Copps, Robert McDowell, Mignon L. Clyburn, and Meredith A. Baker. - FCC - ATTACHMENT RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU (CGB) CG Docket No. 10-266 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.716 through 1.719 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints. Part 6 - Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities - Outlines the obligations of manufacturers and service providers concerning accessibility to telecommunications service and equipment. Part 7 - Access to Voicemail and Interactive Menu Services and Equipment by People with Disabilities
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
  • subject to the Commission's existing enforcement and complaint mechanisms. See CenturyLink Section XV Comments at 22; ITTA Section XV Comments at 21-22; Time Warner Cable Section XV Comments at 13-14. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.711. Parties can file an informal complaint by contacting the Enforcement Bureau, which will seek to facilitate a resolution to the issue. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-18. Additionally, parties can avail themselves of the Commission's formal complaint process, if they were not satisfied with the outcome of their informal complaint. 47 U.S.C. § 208; 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-36. Formal complaint proceedings are similar to court proceedings and are generally resolved on a written record. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.720. We note, under the Act, that section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-52A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-52A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-52A1.txt
  • condition the effectiveness of a roaming arrangement on the requesting provider's provision of mobile data service to its own subscribers using a generation of wireless technology comparable to the technology on which the requesting provider seeks to roam. (2) A party alleging a violation of this section may file a formal or informal complaint pursuant to the procedures in §§ 1.716-1.718, 1.720, 1.721, and 1.723-1.735 of this chapter, which sections are incorporated herein. For purposes of section 20.12(e), references to a ``carrier'' or ``common carrier'' in the formal and informal complaint procedures incorporated herein will mean a provider of commercial mobile data services. The Commission will resolve such disputes on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.txt
  • Award. See, e.g., Stipulated Facts at 8 (citing 47 U.S.C. 252(e)(6)). For convenience, we refer to the federal district court proceeding in which FeatureGroup IP seeks review of the Texas PUC's Arbitration Award as the ``Court Arbitration Review Action.'' See, e.g., Complaint. AT&T Texas simultaneously filed an informal complaint against FeatureGroup IP under section 208 of the Act and rules 1.716-1.719, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-1.719. The informal complaint challenges the lawfulness of the SLTS Tariff on several grounds not alleged in the formal Complaint, including that (i) SLTS is an ``enhanced service'' not eligible for inclusion in a Title II tariff; (ii) the SLTS Tariff violates 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(c)(2) by charging connecting carriers for the delivery of calling party number
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Award. 22See, e.g., Stipulated Facts at 8 (citing 47 U.S.C. 252(e)(6)). For convenience, we refer to the federal district court proceeding in which FeatureGroup IP seeks review of the Texas PUC's Arbitration Award as the "Court Arbitration Review Action." 23See, e.g., Complaint. AT&T Texas simultaneously filed an informal complaint against FeatureGroup IP under section 208 of the Act and rules 1.716-1.719, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-1.719. The informal complaint challenges the lawfulness of the SLTS Tariff on several grounds not alleged in the formal Complaint, including that (i) SLTS is an "enhanced service" not eligible for inclusion in a Title II tariff; (ii) the SLTS Tariff violates 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(c)(2) by charging connecting carriers for the delivery of calling party number
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.wp
  • rules and orders require, among other things, that IXCs obtain signed letters of agency ("LOAs") or, in the case of telemarketing solicitations, complete one of four telemarketing Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-76 ______________________________________________________________________________ 12 See PIC Change Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 1038-39. 13 See Show Cause Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8552, para. 7. 14 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-1.718. 15 Upon receipt of a consumer complaint, the Enforcement Division routinely issues an Official Notice to all carriers identified in the complaint or that may, in the staff's view, assist in the resolution of the complaint. The Official Notice requires the common carrier to satisfy or answer the complaint and respond to the Commission's Official Notice with a written report,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.wp
  • 7-8; BSA reply comments at 7; PCIA reply comments at 9-10; TIA reply comments at 63. The NAD and R, on the other hand, are opposed to any rule that would require consumers to first notify manufacturers and service providers before filing a plaint with the Commission; NAD reply comments at 6; COR comments at 4-5. 276 See 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. In administering the informal complaint rules, Commission staff works cooperatively with consumers and iers to ensure meaningful solutions to problems raised by consumers and to address any underlying compliance concerns. In many instances, rmal complaints are satisfactorily resolved by carriers with little direct involvement by Commission staff. We note further that Commission staff inely meets with carrier representatives
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.txt
  • read as follows: § 64.1180 [Reserved] RULES ADDED Part 1 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows: 1. Part 1, Subpart E, is amended by adding section 1.719 to read as follows: § 1.719 Informal Complaints Filed Pursuant to Section 258 Notwithstanding the requirements of §§ 1.716-1.718, the following procedures shall apply to complaints alleging that a carrier has violated section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, by making an unauthorized change of a subscriber's preferred carrier, as defined by § 64.1100(e). Form. The complaint shall be in writing, and should contain: (1) the complainant's name, address, telephone
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00456.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00456.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00456.txt
  • process for the private and common carrier microwave services, to the extent they are licensed on a site-by-site, frequency-by-frequency basis. This could potentially allow private frequency coordinators to perform certain licensing functions for designated spectrum bands, including, for example, maintaining the licensee database. Consumer Information Bureau We accept staff's recommendation that we review the informal complaint rules found at sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules. Staff concluded that these rules do not specify the documentation consumers must file with the Commission to complete their complaints and that they do not prescribe a specific timeframe for carriers to respond to an informal complaint. Staff noted that, as currently written, these rules lead to repetitive filings from consumers, unnecessary costs to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210018-1.pdf
  • more time may be needed to provide a meaningful response. See id. at ll 137. If the proposed "fast-track" process is unable to resolve the problem, the consumer will need to resort to the complaint procedures. There is no reason for the Commission to establish unique procedures for Section 255 complaints. The existing flexible informal complaint rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-718, and the new, streamlined formal complaint procedures, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-735, should allow for efficient resolution of accessibility complaints. The Commission should not adopt its proposal to eliminate all standing requirements for Section 255 complaints. See Notice at r[ 148. Instead, the Commission should prescribe minimal standing requirements - the complainant must be disabled or be represented by a public
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210021-1.pdf
  • generally include legal or technical arguments." Amendment of Rules Governinq Procedures to be followed where Formal Complaints are filed aqainst Common Carriers, FCC 86-576 (12) (Commission,released January 9, 1987). The format and procedure are simple,often involving oral communications, with an option to convert the complaint to a formal one if the informal process does not satisfy the complaining party. 47 C.F.R.§§1.716-718. 6. The Commission's rules governing formal complaints are structured to elicit full factual information and documents relevant to the positions of the parties, with limited and controlled discovery,a litigation status conference amongst the parties and the Commission's staff,and a briefing of the facts and the legal issues for agency decision. 47 C.F.R. §§1.720-735. These formal complaint rules are designed to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210106-1.pdf
  • and may serve to create side issues not relevant to a real solution. Given the highly competitive CMRS market, if a carrier can gather the relevant information, identify possible solutions and/or begin to work with the complainant in five lgAirTouch is not suggesting that the Commission add a new fee requirement to the informal complaint process, see 47 C.F.R. Q 1.716. ?l, para. 128, citinn "TAAC Report," $0 6.7.4.1, 6.7.4.2, at 32; IJI., para. 130; & para. 148. 8 business days, they already have ample incentives to do so. Standard informal complaint procedures should be sufficient to address matters promptly and efficiently.2' CONCLUSION AirTouch is committed to continuing to meet the needs of its customers with disabilities, and to ensure that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/biennial2000report.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/biennial2000report.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/biennial2000report.txt
  • available in those geographical areas. CIB will continue to work on other outreach initiatives to underserved communities. These non-regulatory initiatives will educate consumers so that they can make better, more informed choices about telecommunications services, and more fully enjoy the fruits of competitive markets. New Initiatives The staff recommends that the Commission consider reviewing its informal complaint rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716-718. The rules do not specify the documentation consumers must file with the Commission to complete their complaints, leading to repetitive filings from consumers, particularly if the primary filing lacks sufficient information to resolve the informal complaint. The rules also do not prescribe a specific time frame for carriers to respond to an informal complaint. If consumers have not received a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012158.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012158.html
  • No. EB-01-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0004 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0008 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0009 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0011 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0012 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: September 14, 2001 Released: September 14, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications, CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc., Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc., CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services, Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc., CTC Telcom, Inc., Fairpoint Communications Corp., Focal Communications Corp., Intermedia Communications, Inc., Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012159.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012159.html
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. CTC Telecom, Inc. ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0016 ORDER Adopted: September 14, 2001 Released: September 14, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of our rules, Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (``Sprint'') filed an informal complaint against CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC''). On March 22, 2001, CTC filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in Sprint's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Sprint is required to convert these informal complaints into a formal complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012428.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012428.pdf
  • Services and ) Net2000 Communications of ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 Virginia, LLC; AT&T Corp. v. North County Communications Corp.; AT&T Corp. v. Winstar Communications, Inc., et al.; AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: October 17, 2001 Released: October 18, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications, CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc., Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc., CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services, Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc., CTC Telcom, Inc., Fairpoint Communications Corp., Focal Communications Corp., Intermedia Communications, Inc., Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012551.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012551.pdf
  • Services and ) Net2000 Communications of ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 Virginia, LLC; AT&T Corp. v. North County Communications Corp.; AT&T Corp. v. Winstar Communications, Inc., et al.; AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: November 1, 2001 Released: November 2, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications (``Advamtel''), CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc. (``CFW''), Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc. (``CTSI''), CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Fairpoint Communications Corp. (``Fairpoint''), Focal Communications Corp. (``Focal''),
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.html
  • BTI; and Cheryl A. Tritt, Counsel for Sprint, AT&T Corp. v. Business Telecom, Inc., File No. EB-01-MD-001 and Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. Business Telecom, Inc., File No. EB-01-MD-002 (dated Feb. 15, 2001). To effectuate further the court's referrals, both AT&T and Sprint filed informal complaints against all of the other CLECs remaining in the Advamtel Litigation pursuant to sections 1.716-18 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-18. AT&T Second Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 5-6, 20-35; Sprint Complaint, ¶ 2, 12-23. This claim appears in Counts I, II, and III of Sprint's Complaint, which we consider collectively rather than individually, and in Count I of AT&T's Second Amended Complaint. AT&T Second Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 36-42. Complainants request that the Commission
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01257.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01257.html
  • In this Order, we deny the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company's (PLDT) petition for reconsideration of our Order canceling forfeitures against World Communications, Inc. (WorldCom) and the Manila Peninsula Hotel (Hotel). The Commission found WorldCom and the Hotel apparently liable for the forfeitures on January 23, 1993, following its investigation of an informal complaint filed by PLDT pursuant to section 1.716 of our rules. The Commission determined that, as alleged in the complaint, the Hotel apparently had charged one of its guests for making two telephone calls to the United States over international private lines (IPLs) provided to the Hotel by Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation on the Philippine end, and WorldCom on the United States end. The Commission further determined
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1065A1.html
  • ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) AT&T Corp., ) ) Complainant, ) v. ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-007 ) CTC Telcom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: May 7, 2002 Released: May 8, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above- captioned matter. On March 16, 2001, CTC Telcom filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1242A1.html
  • ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) AT&T Corp., ) ) Complainant, ) v. ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-007 ) CTC Telcom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: May 23, 2002 Released: May 24, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above- captioned matter. Since the filing of the informal complaint, AT&T and CTC Telcom have engaged in extensive settlement negotiations and have recently reached a settlement agreement. On May 21, 2002, AT&T filed a Consent Motion requesting dismissal of its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2070A1.html
  • In the Matter of ) ) CTC Communications Corp., ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0001 ) Verizon New England, Inc. and ) Verizon New York, Inc., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Adopted: August 22, 2002 Released: August 27, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 9, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 CTC Communications Corp. (``CTC'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Verizon New England, Inc. and Verizon New York, Inc. (collectively ``Verizon'') in the above-captioned matter. On February 27, 2002, Verizon filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in CTC's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-210A1.html
  • Net2000 Communications of ) Virginia, LLC; ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 AT&T Corp. v. North County ) Communications Corp.; AT&T Corp. v. Winstar Communications, Inc., et al.; AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: January 25, 2002 Released: January 29, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications (``Advamtel''), CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc. (``CFW''), Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc. (``CTSI''), CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Fairpoint Communications Corp. (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''),
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2204A1.html
  • ) Independent Networks Co. v. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0826 AT&T Corp. ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0008 Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. Northern Valley Communications, LLC v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: September 9, 2002 Released: September 10, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: In November and December, 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., Independent Networks Co., Mark Twain Communications Company, and Northern Valley Communications, LLC (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs''), filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2340A1.html
  • No. EB-02-MDIC-0005 AT&T Corp. ) ) Heart of Iowa Communications, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: September 24, 2002 Released: September 25, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., and Independent Networks Co. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above- captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2552A1.html
  • No. EB-02-MDIC-0005 AT&T Corp. ) ) Heart of Iowa Communications, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: October 7, 2002 Released: October 8, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., and Independent Networks Co. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above- captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2697A1.html
  • of this Consent Decree; g) ``Effective Date'' means the date on which the Commission adopts the Adopting Order. h) ``Preferred carrier change'' shall mean an order or request submitted by a carrier to a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') to effect a change in the customer's preferred carrier; i) ``Informal Complaint'' or ``Consumer Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 C.F.R. 1.716; j) ``Formal Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 U.S.C. 208; 9. The Parties agree that the provisions of this Consent Decree shall be subject to final approval by the Bureau by incorporation of such provisions by reference in an Adopting Order of the Bureau. 10. The Parties agree that this Consent Decree shall become effective on the date on
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2758A1.html
  • v. AT&T Corp. ) ) Heart of Iowa Communications, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ) Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: October 21, 2002 Released: October 22, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above- captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3013A1.html
  • AT&T Corp. ) ) Heart of Iowa Communications, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ) Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: November 4, 2002 Released: November 5, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-301A1.html
  • was refusing to pay.13 Shortly thereafter, this Commission released the TSR Wireless Order, in which it resolved numerous issues relating to the propriety of LEC charges to CMRS carriers.14 After the TSR Wireless Order, the NCUC dismissed Concord's complaint.15 Independent of the NCUC proceeding, Metrocall filed an informal complaint with the Commission against Concord in August 2000 pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules.16 On April 6, 2001, Metrocall ``converted'' its informal complaint into the instant formal complaint pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules.17 Metrocall's complaint asserts two claims: (1) that Concord violates section 201(b) of the Act18 and Commission orders by charging recurring fees to Metrocall solely for the use of DID numbers;19 and (2) that Concord
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3182A1.html
  • AT&T Corp. ) ) Heart of Iowa Communications, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ) Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: November 15, 2002 Released: November 18, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3305A1.html
  • v. AT&T Corp. ) ) Heart of Iowa Communications, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ) Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: November 27, 2002 Released: December 2, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3414A1.html
  • to fulfill its obligations under the parties' interconnection agreement to make payments relating to the exchange of certain traffic.3 Verizon filed its answer denying these obligations on September 25, 2002.4 On December 4, 2002, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Convert Case requesting that the Commission convert US LEC's formal complaint into an informal complaint as defined by section 1.716 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716.5 In addition to this request, the parties asked that the filing date of the informal complaint be deemed September 5, 2002, which is the filing date of the formal complaint, and that the Commission extend the six-month period within which the informal complaint must be converted to a formal complaint under sections 1.717-18
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3467A1.html
  • v. AT&T Corp. ) ) Heart of Iowa Communications, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ) Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: December 16, 2002 Released: December 17, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3492A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Clarence Telephone Company, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications ) v. AT&T Corp. ) ORDER Adopted: December 18, 2002 Released: December 20, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-34A1.html
  • Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) WORLDCOM, INC. ) ) ) Complainant, ) ) EB-01-MDIC-1158 v. ) ) VIRGIN ISLANDS TELEPHONE ) CORPORATION ) d/b/a INNOVATIVE TELEPHONE ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: January 8, 2002 Released: January 9, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 28, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716, WorldCom, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation d/b/a Innovative Telephone (``Vitelco'').1 WorldCom alleges that Vitelco has violated the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and the Commission's rules regarding the maximum allowable rate-of-return for local exchange carriers in 47 C.F.R. 65.700 et seq. According to a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-35A1.html
  • Net2000 Communications of ) Virginia, LLC; ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 AT&T Corp. v. North County ) Communications Corp.; AT&T Corp. v. Winstar Communications, Inc., et al.; AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: January 8, 2002 Released: January 9, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications (``Advamtel''), CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc. (``CFW''), Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc. (``CTSI''), CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Fairpoint Communications Corp. (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''),
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-360A1.html
  • EB-01-MDIC-0013 Net2000 Communications of ) Virginia, LLC; ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 AT&T Corp. v. North County Communications Corp.; AT&T Corp. v. Winstar Communications, Inc., et al.; AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: February 14, 2002 Released: February 15, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications (``Advamtel''), CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc. (``CFW''), Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc. (``CTSI''), CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Fairpoint Communications Corp. (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''),
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-450A1.html
  • EB-01-MDIC-0010 AT&T Corp. v. Intermedia ) Communications, Inc.; ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 ) AT&T Corp. v. Winstar ) Communications, Inc., et al.; ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: February 26, 2002 Released: February 27, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-597A1.html
  • EB-01-MDIC-0010 AT&T Corp. v. Intermedia ) Communications, Inc.; ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 ) AT&T Corp. v. Winstar ) Communications, Inc., et al.; ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: March 12, 2002 Released: March 13, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-721A1.html
  • EB-01-MDIC-0010 AT&T Corp. v. Intermedia ) Communications, Inc.; ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 ) AT&T Corp. v. Winstar ) Communications, Inc., et al.; ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: March 26, 2002 Released: March 27, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-822A1.html
  • EB-01-MDIC-0006 AT&T Corp. v. Consolidated ) Communications Networks, Inc.; ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 AT&T Corp. v. CTC Telecom, ) Inc.; ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 AT&T Corp. v. XIT ) Telecommunications & ) Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: April 10, 2002 Released: April 11, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-960A1.html
  • ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) AT&T Corp., ) ) Complainant, ) v. ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 ) CTC Telcom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: April 25, 2002 Released: April 26, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above- captioned matter. On March 16, 2001, CTC Telcom filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-314A1.html
  • Carbo v. U.S., 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963)); American International Development, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 86 FCC 2d 808, 815, 17 (1981) (noting that the existence of corroborative evidence is a factor to be considered in weighing the evidence presented). See also Contemporary Media, Inc., Decision, 13 FCC Rcd 14,437, 14,457, 39 (1998). 199 See 47 C.F.R. 1.716, 1.717, and 1.718. 200 The informal complaint letters are dated September 15, 1997, are printed on ITC's stationery, and include the name of ITC's president, William J. Nelson. We find credible the affidavit of Pamela S. Wickham, ITC's office manager during the time period at issue, that it was the company's customary practice to send letters out on the date
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1083A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: April 3, 2003 Released: April 4, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1174A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: April 17, 2003 Released: April 21, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-170A1.html
  • Corp. ) ) Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 AT&T Corp., ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 Clarence Telephone Company, ) Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: January 21, 2003 Released: January 22, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and April 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002 and July 19, 2002, AT&T filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-207A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: January 27, 2003 Released: January 28, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-22A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: January 7, 2003 Released: January 8, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-358A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Clarence Telephone Company, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications ) v. AT&T Corp. ) ORDER Adopted: February 5, 2003 Released: February 6, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-371A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: February 6, 2003 Released: February 7, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4092A1.html
  • version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Ketchikan Internet Services ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-03-MDIC-0015 ) City of Ketchikan, d/b/a ) Ketchikan Public Utilities ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: December 23, 2003 Released: December 23, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 21, 2003, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Ketchikan Internet Services (``KIS'') filed an informal complaint against defendant City of Ketchikan, d/b/a Ketchikan Public Utilities (``KPU'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On May 16, 2003, KPU filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in KIS' Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 KIS must convert
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4110A1.html
  • Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: December 30, 2003 Released: December 31, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-449A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Qwest Corporation, ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0038 ) Cable & Wireless USA, Inc., and ) U.S. South Communications, ) Inc., ) ) Defendants. ORDER Adopted: February 14, 2003 Released: February 24, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 11, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Qwest Corporation (``Qwest'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. (``C&W'') and U.S. South Communications, Inc. (``U.S. South'') in the above- captioned matter.2 U.S. South and C&W filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 on July 12, 2002 and July 15, 2002, respectively, denying the allegations in Qwest's Informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-478A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: February 21, 2003 Released: February 24, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-569A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Clarence Telephone Company, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications ) v. AT&T Corp. ) ORDER Adopted: February 26, 2003 Released: February 27, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-67A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Qwest Corporation, ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0038 ) Cable & Wireless USA, Inc., and ) U.S. South Communications, ) Inc., ) ) Defendants. ORDER Adopted: January 10, 2003 Released: January 13, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 11, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Qwest Corporation (``Qwest'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. (``C&W'') and U.S. South Communications, Inc. (``U.S. South'') in the above- captioned matter.2 U.S. South and C&W filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 on July 12, 2002 and July 15, 2002, respectively, denying the allegations in Qwest's Informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-787A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: March 14, 2003 Released: March 17, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-827A1.html
  • ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Clarence Telephone Company, ) Inc. d/b/a Cedar ) Communications, ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 v. ) ) AT&T Corp., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: March 19, 2003 Released: March 20, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-836A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: March 20, 2003 Released: March 21, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1043A1.html
  • Intera Communications Corp., ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-03-MDIC-0022 ) Telstar International, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: April 15, 2004 Released: April 19, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 30, 2003, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules1 alleging that Telstar International, Inc. (``Telstar'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones.2 Telstar replied to the informal complaint on August 16, 2003.3 Therefore, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Complainants were required to convert their informal complaint into
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1099A1.html
  • Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: April 26, 2004 Released: April 26, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-14A1.html
  • 20554 AT&T Corp. and ) AT&T of the Virgin Islands ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0552 ) Virgin Islands Telephone ) Corporation d/b/a/ ) Innovative Telephone ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: January 6, 2004 Released: January 7, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 10, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules,1 AT&T Corp. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, AT&T of the Virgin Islands (``AT&T'' or ``Complainants''), filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation d/b/a Innovative Telephone (``Vitelco'') had unlawful earnings during 1997 and 1998, and requesting that Vitelco be ordered to return a portion of the overearnings.2 Vitelco replied to AT&T's Complaint on July
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1809A1.html
  • requesting such action within sixty (60) days after notice of termination or expiration of the automatic stay in Cable & Wireless' bankruptcy proceedings, rather than filing an entirely new formal complaint.12 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Qwest's and U.S. South's Joint Request for Dismissal With Prejudice as to U.S. South IS GRANTED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1874A1.html
  • Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: June 24, 2004, 2004 Released: June 28, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2837A1.html
  • Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: August 30, 2004 Released: September 1, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2972A1.html
  • coordinating its channel assignments and by extending its coverage into NWMC's protected Cellular Geographic Service Area (``CGSA'') without NWMC's consent.3 By agreement of the parties, the complaint was held in abeyance pending mediation and settlement discussions.4 By letter dated September 7, 2004, counsel for NWMC requested that the formal complaint be reclassified as an informal complaint5 (as defined by section 1.716 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716). Counsel for Cingular informed staff that Cingular does not object to NWMC's request. We are satisfied that granting the Request to Convert will serve the public interest by promoting the settlement of this dispute and by postponing the need for litigation and expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3265A1.html
  • parties and of this Commission until such time as may actually be necessary. We are not satisfied, however, that the additional safeguard requested by ACS is necessary and/or serves the public interest. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716- 18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Claims Against ACS of Fairbanks, Inc. and ACS of Alaska, Inc.; Request to Convert Claims Against ACS of Anchorage, Inc. to Claims in an Informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3394A1.html
  • Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) Informal Complaints filed by ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to MCI, Inc. Against Various Local ) 0057 Exchange Carriers ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: October 26, 2004 Released: October 27, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI is required to convert its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3467A1.html
  • Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: October 28, 2004 Released: November 1, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3569A1.html
  • 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727, Verizon's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Defer, is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. 29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, Broadview's formal complaint of December 30, 2003 SHALL BE CONVERTED into an informal complaint with a designated filing date of December 30, 2003, and that the formal complaint and answer
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3871A1.html
  • Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) Informal Complaints filed by ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to MCI, Inc. Against Various Local ) 0057 Exchange Carriers ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: December 9, 2004 Released: December 10, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI was required to convert its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3978A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) Verizon, ) ) File No. EB-04-MDIC-095 Com- ) plainant, ) ) v. ) ) Operator Communications, Inc., ) ) Defen- dant. ORDER Adopted: December 17, 2004 Released: December 20, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 30, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Verizon filed an informal complaint against Operator Communications, Inc., (``OCI'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 16, 2004, Verizon responded to written questions posed by Commission staff, and on September 3, 2004, OCI responded to Verizon's informal complaint. At the request of Commission staff, Verizon submitted a written reply to OCI's response on October 27, 2004.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-577A1.html
  • Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: February 27, 2004 Released: February 27, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-753A1.html
  • authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice the Complaint against the Remaining Defendants IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Complainants' formal complaint is converted to an informal complaint, and that the formal complaint and answer filed in the above- captioned proceeding satisfy sections 1.716-17 of the Commission's rules, 47
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-195A1.html
  • 9. The parties stipulate that Vitelco's access earnings exceeded its maximum allowable rate of return during the first six months of 1997.38 In addition, the record clearly indicates that Vitelco's access earnings exceeded its maximum allowable rate of return during the remainder of the 1997-1998 Monitoring Period, as well.39 I.B. Procedural Background 10. On September 10, 2001, pursuant to sections 1.716-1.717 of our rules,40 AT&T filed an informal complaint against Vitelco alleging that Vitelco had earned more than its maximum allowable rate of return, and thus had overcharged AT&T for access services, during the 1997-1998 Monitoring Period.41 Also on September 10, 2001, AT&T and Vitelco moved jointly that the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') instruct Vitelco not to respond to AT&T's informal complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-284A1.html
  • 15, 2004) (``Joint Statement'') at 2, 2. The Complaint uses the term, ``Tel-America'' to refer to either or both Tel-America or Tel- America's parent company, TransTel Communications, Inc. Complaint at 1-2, n.1. 7Informal Complaint, File No. EB-02-MDIC-0093 (filed Nov. 15, 2002) (``Informal Complaint''), attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 5. 847 U.S.C. 208; 47 C.F.R. 1.711. See also 47 C.F.R. 1.716-1.719. 9Informal Complaint at 9; Joint Statement at 2, 3. 10Response to Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-02-MDIC- 0093 (filed Jan. 17, 2003), attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 6, at 9; Joint Statement at 2, 3. 11Letter from Alexander P. Starr, Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Karen Brinkmann, counsel for TelePacific, EB-02-MDIC-0093 (rel. February 26, 2003),
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1324A1.html
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.716-1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.716- 1.718, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Formal Complaint of Broadview Networks, Inc., File No. EB-03- MD-021 (filed Dec. 30, 2003) (``Complaint''). 2 Joint Notice of Withdrawal of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-328A1.html
  • Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Informal Complaints filed by ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to MCI, Inc. Against Various Local ) 0057 Exchange Carriers ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: February 7, 2005 Released: February 8, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI was required to convert its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-484A1.html
  • Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: February 24, 2005 Released: February 25, 2005 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-48A1.html
  • Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Informal Complaints filed by ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to MCI, Inc. Against Various Local ) 0057 Exchange Carriers ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: January 10, 2005 Released: January 10, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI was required to convert its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-4A1.html
  • New England, Inc., ) Verizon Southwest, Inc., ) Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc., ) Verizon North, Inc., Verizon ) Virginia, Inc., Verizon South, Inc., Verizon West Virginia, Inc., and GTE Southwest, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Southwest, Defen- dants. ORDER Adopted: January 4, 2005 Released: January 4, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On July 6, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Operator Communications, Inc., (``OCI'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon California, Inc., Verizon Washington, D.C., Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon Delaware, Inc., Verizon Florida, Inc., Verizon Hawaii, Inc., Verizon Northwest, Inc., Verizon New Jersey, Inc., Verizon New England, Inc., Verizon Southwest, Inc., Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc., Verizon North, Inc., Verizon Virginia, Inc., Verizon South, Inc., Verizon West
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-668A1.html
  • Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Informal Complaints filed by ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to MCI, Inc. Against Various Local ) 0057 Exchange Carriers ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: March 15, 2005 Released: March 15, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,4 MCI was required to convert its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-6A1.html
  • Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: January 4, 2005 Released: January 5, 2005 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-207A1.html
  • October 1, 2003 tariff filings to reflect that the PICC no longer applies to payphone lines.''20 The Payphone PICC Order went on to state that the Commission ``ma[d]e no finding with respect to the application of PICCs prior to the effective date of this Order.''21 II.C. OCI's Claim for Damages from Verizon 7. On July 6, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of our rules,22 OCI filed an informal complaint against Verizon seeking (i) lost profits and (ii) refunds of the PICCs that Verizon assessed OCI from April 1998 to April 2001.23 OCI contended that the Payphone PICC Order's exemption of payphone lines from PICCs applies retroactively and renders Verizon's PICCs unlawful under sections 201(b) and 276 of the Act. After Verizon
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-228A1.html
  • "initially" refer disputed issues to certain company representatives, and if no resolution was reached within thirty days, either party was permitted to pursue other remedies. The ADR process failed to produce settlement of the disputed issues within 30 days after Dobson initiated the process. 10. On June 24, 2003, Dobson filed an informal complaint at the Commission pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules raising each of the three claims that it asserts in the instant formal Complaint. Specifically, Dobson alleged that BellSouth: (1) failed to pay refunds owed due to BellSouth's use of shared facilities; (2) failed to pay refunds owed to Dobson for reciprocal compensation; and (3) failed to retroactively offer Dobson the ISP Order's rates in Georgia
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-14A1.html
  • the informal complaint process, the complainant can then commence a "formal" complaint process, which resembles commercial litigation in court. 16. Under section 415(b) of the Act, a "complaint" against a carrier seeking recovery of damages must be filed within two years from the time the damages claim accrues. It is well established that "[a]n `informal complaint' filed pursuant to sections 1.716-1.718 of the Commission's rules constitutes a `complaint' within the meaning of section 415 of the Act and thus tolls the running of the two-year limitations period." Under rule 1.718, for purposes of continuing the tolling of the limitations period, the filing date of a formal complaint can "relate back" to the filing date of a prior informal complaint involving the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1366A1.html
  • addresses of record: (1) 860 E 4500 S, Suite 305, Salt Lake City, Utah 84107-3090 and (2) 8494 S 700 E, Suite 150, Sandy, Utah 84070-0541 as well as another known address - 2470 W. Majestic Parkway, Tucson, Arizona 85705. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S: 201-276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716-17. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). G-Five LLC v. Global Access, LD LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, No. EB-07-MDIC-0026, June 14, 2007 ("Notice"). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S:
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-424A1.html
  • West Star Telecom'ns, LLC EB-07-MDIC-0049 Pinnacle Public 12/07/07 West Star EB-07-MDIC-0055 Paytel 12/20/07 West Star Defendant is variously referred to as "West Star," "WestStar," and "Weststar" in the various complaints - see Attachment. For consistency and ease of reference, we will refer to Defendant as "West Star." 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services v. West Star Telecommunications, LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0049 (dated Apr. 4, 2007) ("Notice"). Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-425A1.html
  • Telecommunications, at its address of record, 650 S. Grand Avenue, Ste. 110/111, Los Angeles, CA 90017. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaint Served on WorldOne Telecommunications File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0051 APCC Services, Inc. WorldOne Telecommunications April 2, 2007 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. WorldOne Telecommunications, Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 (Apr. 2, 2007) ("Notice"). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-426A1.html
  • address of record, 15061 Springdale Street, Ste 206, Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1165. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaint Served on International Telecom Exchange File No. Complainant Defendant Service Date EB-06-MDIC-0052 APCC Services, Inc. International Telecom Exchange March 15, 2007 Group, Inc. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0052, (July 7, 2006) ("Notice"). See Appendix. Notice at 2.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-525A1.html
  • Pensacola, FL 32507. 15. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaints against Telefyne Inc. File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0047 APCC Services, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 EB-06-MDIC-0084 G-Five LLC Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 01/31/07 none EB-07-MDIC-0019 PBS TelCom, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services, Inc. v. Telefyne, Inc., Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0047 (Sept. 18, 2007) ("Notice"). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-526A1.html
  • Issa, 360 W. 9th Ave., Escondido, CA 92029. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaints Served on GNCW File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-07-MDIC-0001 PBS TelCom, Inc. Global Network Communication West, Inc. 4/25/07 EB-07-MDIC-0027 C&M Global Network Communication West, Inc. 6/14/07 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). PBS TelCom, Inc. v. Global Network Communications West, Inc., Second Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-07-MDIC-0001 (April 25, 2007) ("Notice") See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-19A1.html
  • Award. See, e.g., Stipulated Facts at 8 (citing 47 U.S.C. 252(e)(6)). For convenience, we refer to the federal district court proceeding in which FeatureGroup IP seeks review of the Texas PUC's Arbitration Award as the "Court Arbitration Review Action." See, e.g., Complaint. AT&T Texas simultaneously filed an informal complaint against FeatureGroup IP under section 208 of the Act and rules 1.716-1.719, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716-1.719. The informal complaint challenges the lawfulness of the SLTS Tariff on several grounds not alleged in the formal Complaint, including that (i) SLTS is an "enhanced service" not eligible for inclusion in a Title II tariff; (ii) the SLTS Tariff violates 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1601(c)(2) by charging connecting carriers for the delivery of calling party number
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da000641.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da000641.txt
  • of this Consent Decree; ``Effective Date'' means the date on which the Commission adopts the Adopting Order. ``PIC Change'' is an order or request transmitted by an interexchange carrier to a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') requesting a change of a customer's primary interexchange and/or intraLATA carrier (``PIC''); ``Informal Complaint'' or ``Customer Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 C.F.R. § 1.716; ``Formal Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 U.S.C. § 208; ``Telemarketing agent'' means a person or entity, or employee thereof, who places telemarketing calls to consumers on behalf of Sprint for the purpose of inducing the consumer to change his or her PIC to Sprint. The Parties agree that the provisions of this Consent Decree shall be subject to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00898cd.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00898cd.txt
  • securities laws and regulations. 26. The Parties agree and acknowledge that this Consent Decree shall constitute a final settlement of the Inquiry. The Bureau will not initiate on its own motion any other enforcement action against Excel, or seek on its own motion any administrative or other penalties from Excel, based on any informal complaint (as defined in 47 C.F.R. §1.716 et seq.), or any claim or allegation arising out of purportedly unauthorized preferred carrier changes that allegedly occurred prior to the Effective Date. 27. The Parties agree that the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree shall remain in effect for two (2) years from the date of the Adopting Order unless a longer period is specified herein. The Parties
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00205.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00205.txt
  • or any wrongdoing. The Parties agree and acknowledge that this Consent Decree shall constitute a final settlement of the Inquiry. The FCC will not initiate on its own motion any other enforcement action against MCI WorldCom, or seek on its own motion any administrative or other penalties from the Company, based on any informal complaint (as defined in 47 C.F.R. §1.716 et. seq.), or any claim or allegation arising out of purportedly unauthorized preferred carrier changes that allegedly occurred prior to the Effective Date. The Parties agree that the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree shall remain in effect for thirty-six (36) months from the Effective Date. Adoption of a Telemarketing Compliance Program Within 30 days of the Effective Date,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/Welcome.html
  • Starr, Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, [21]www.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd, describing the alleged violation of the Communications Act. There is no fee associated with filing an informal complaint. The letter must include the name of the defendant carrier, a complete statement of the facts, and the relief sought. In addition, the complainant may request mediation in the informal complaint letter. Refer to Section 1.716 - 1.718 of the Rules (47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718) for specific details about filing an informal complaint. Once an informal complaint is received, the Division transmits it to the defendant carrier, and typically requires the defendant to submit a response within thirty days. Even before the response deadline, parties are encouraged to explore the possibility of private settlement or
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.wp
  • rules and orders require, among other things, that IXCs obtain signed letters of agency ("LOAs") or, in the case of telemarketing solicitations, complete one of four telemarketing Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-76 ______________________________________________________________________________ 12 See PIC Change Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 1038-39. 13 See Show Cause Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8552, para. 7. 14 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-1.718. 15 Upon receipt of a consumer complaint, the Enforcement Division routinely issues an Official Notice to all carriers identified in the complaint or that may, in the staff's view, assist in the resolution of the complaint. The Official Notice requires the common carrier to satisfy or answer the complaint and respond to the Commission's Official Notice with a written report,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.wp
  • 7-8; BSA reply comments at 7; PCIA reply comments at 9-10; TIA reply comments at 63. The NAD and R, on the other hand, are opposed to any rule that would require consumers to first notify manufacturers and service providers before filing a plaint with the Commission; NAD reply comments at 6; COR comments at 4-5. 276 See 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. In administering the informal complaint rules, Commission staff works cooperatively with consumers and iers to ensure meaningful solutions to problems raised by consumers and to address any underlying compliance concerns. In many instances, rmal complaints are satisfactorily resolved by carriers with little direct involvement by Commission staff. We note further that Commission staff inely meets with carrier representatives
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.txt
  • read as follows: § 64.1180 [Reserved] RULES ADDED Part 1 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows: 1. Part 1, Subpart E, is amended by adding section 1.719 to read as follows: § 1.719 Informal Complaints Filed Pursuant to Section 258 Notwithstanding the requirements of §§ 1.716-1.718, the following procedures shall apply to complaints alleging that a carrier has violated section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, by making an unauthorized change of a subscriber's preferred carrier, as defined by § 64.1100(e). Form. The complaint shall be in writing, and should contain: (1) the complainant's name, address, telephone
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00456.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00456.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00456.txt
  • process for the private and common carrier microwave services, to the extent they are licensed on a site-by-site, frequency-by-frequency basis. This could potentially allow private frequency coordinators to perform certain licensing functions for designated spectrum bands, including, for example, maintaining the licensee database. Consumer Information Bureau We accept staff's recommendation that we review the informal complaint rules found at sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules. Staff concluded that these rules do not specify the documentation consumers must file with the Commission to complete their complaints and that they do not prescribe a specific timeframe for carriers to respond to an informal complaint. Staff noted that, as currently written, these rules lead to repetitive filings from consumers, unnecessary costs to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-98.pdf
  • $1,764,850 1.8 4.761.815.716.0 $302,195 0.0 0.099.3 0.0 0.7 $2,017,764 0.4 0.099.6 0.0 0.0 2,470,427 1.4 4.965.017.211.6 Saint Helena $178,146 0.1 2.8 1.9 0.095.2 $81 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.092.6 $99100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 548,587 0.0 1.9 0.8 0.097.3 Sao Tome and Principe $875,799 9.516.143.8 0.030.5 $317 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $329,42899.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 788,847 4.124.829.1 0.042.0 Senegal $28,107,07542.7 1.716.929.0 9.8 $1,551,12762.3 0.037.6 0.0 0.2 $2,448,64691.3 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.1 21,941,64335.5 2.621.924.515.5 Seychelles $414,712 4.5 3.6 8.411.472.0 $11,33313.9 0.0 3.6 0.082.5 $2,10697.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 490,694 3.2 3.6 5.7 5.382.3 Sierra Leone $19,913,05449.5 0.415.1 1.233.9 $1,005,40099.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 $4,929,18899.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 42,882,43528.2 0.2 9.1 0.462.1 Somalia $7,021,60811.2 3.165.4 2.917.4 $524,92324.0 0.069.8 0.0 6.2 $1,495,203100.0 0.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000641.doc
  • of this Consent Decree; ``Effective Date'' means the date on which the Commission adopts the Adopting Order. ``PIC Change'' is an order or request transmitted by an interexchange carrier to a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') requesting a change of a customer's primary interexchange and/or intraLATA carrier (``PIC''); ``Informal Complaint'' or ``Customer Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 C.F.R. § 1.716; ``Formal Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 U.S.C. § 208; ``Telemarketing agent'' means a person or entity, or employee thereof, who places telemarketing calls to consumers on behalf of Sprint for the purpose of inducing the consumer to change his or her PIC to Sprint. The Parties agree that the provisions of this Consent Decree shall be subject to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00205.doc
  • or any wrongdoing. The Parties agree and acknowledge that this Consent Decree shall constitute a final settlement of the Inquiry. The FCC will not initiate on its own motion any other enforcement action against MCI WorldCom, or seek on its own motion any administrative or other penalties from the Company, based on any informal complaint (as defined in 47 C.F.R. §1.716 et. seq.), or any claim or allegation arising out of purportedly unauthorized preferred carrier changes that allegedly occurred prior to the Effective Date. The Parties agree that the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree shall remain in effect for thirty-six (36) months from the Effective Date. Adoption of a Telemarketing Compliance Program Within 30 days of the Effective Date,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1999/fcc99322.doc
  • We therefore decline to reconsider our prior action. IV. LUKAS, MCGOWAN, NACE & GUTIERREZ PETITION 10. Pleadings. Lukas, McGowan, Nace & Gutierrez (LMNG) takes issue with the Commission's treatment under the revised ex parte rules of complaints against common carriers pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 208. The Commission's rules specify procedures for both informal section 208 complaints (47 C.F.R. § 1.716 et seq.) and formal section 208 complaints (47 C.F.R. § 1.720 et seq.). In revising the ex parte rules, the Commission ruled that it would continue to treat informal section 208 complaints as exempt and formal section 208 complaints as restricted. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202(d)(2), 1.1204(b)(5), 1.208; 12 FCC Rcd at 7354-55 ¶¶ 20-22. 11. LMNG contends that informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210018-1.pdf
  • more time may be needed to provide a meaningful response. See id. at ll 137. If the proposed "fast-track" process is unable to resolve the problem, the consumer will need to resort to the complaint procedures. There is no reason for the Commission to establish unique procedures for Section 255 complaints. The existing flexible informal complaint rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-718, and the new, streamlined formal complaint procedures, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-735, should allow for efficient resolution of accessibility complaints. The Commission should not adopt its proposal to eliminate all standing requirements for Section 255 complaints. See Notice at r[ 148. Instead, the Commission should prescribe minimal standing requirements - the complainant must be disabled or be represented by a public
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210021-1.pdf
  • generally include legal or technical arguments." Amendment of Rules Governinq Procedures to be followed where Formal Complaints are filed aqainst Common Carriers, FCC 86-576 (12) (Commission,released January 9, 1987). The format and procedure are simple,often involving oral communications, with an option to convert the complaint to a formal one if the informal process does not satisfy the complaining party. 47 C.F.R.§§1.716-718. 6. The Commission's rules governing formal complaints are structured to elicit full factual information and documents relevant to the positions of the parties, with limited and controlled discovery,a litigation status conference amongst the parties and the Commission's staff,and a briefing of the facts and the legal issues for agency decision. 47 C.F.R. §§1.720-735. These formal complaint rules are designed to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210106-1.pdf
  • and may serve to create side issues not relevant to a real solution. Given the highly competitive CMRS market, if a carrier can gather the relevant information, identify possible solutions and/or begin to work with the complainant in five lgAirTouch is not suggesting that the Commission add a new fee requirement to the informal complaint process, see 47 C.F.R. Q 1.716. ?l, para. 128, citinn "TAAC Report," $0 6.7.4.1, 6.7.4.2, at 32; IJI., para. 130; & para. 148. 8 business days, they already have ample incentives to do so. Standard informal complaint procedures should be sufficient to address matters promptly and efficiently.2' CONCLUSION AirTouch is committed to continuing to meet the needs of its customers with disabilities, and to ensure that
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012158.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012158.html
  • No. EB-01-MDIC-0003 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0004 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0005 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0006 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0008 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0009 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0010 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0011 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0012 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 ORDER Adopted: September 14, 2001 Released: September 14, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications, CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc., Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc., CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services, Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc., CTC Telcom, Inc., Fairpoint Communications Corp., Focal Communications Corp., Intermedia Communications, Inc., Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012159.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012159.html
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. CTC Telecom, Inc. ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0016 ORDER Adopted: September 14, 2001 Released: September 14, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of our rules, Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (``Sprint'') filed an informal complaint against CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC''). On March 22, 2001, CTC filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in Sprint's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Sprint is required to convert these informal complaints into a formal complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012428.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012428.pdf
  • Services and ) Net2000 Communications of ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 Virginia, LLC; AT&T Corp. v. North County Communications Corp.; AT&T Corp. v. Winstar Communications, Inc., et al.; AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: October 17, 2001 Released: October 18, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications, CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc., Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc., CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services, Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc., CTC Telcom, Inc., Fairpoint Communications Corp., Focal Communications Corp., Intermedia Communications, Inc., Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012551.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012551.pdf
  • Services and ) Net2000 Communications of ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 Virginia, LLC; AT&T Corp. v. North County Communications Corp.; AT&T Corp. v. Winstar Communications, Inc., et al.; AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: November 1, 2001 Released: November 2, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications (``Advamtel''), CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc. (``CFW''), Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc. (``CTSI''), CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Fairpoint Communications Corp. (``Fairpoint''), Focal Communications Corp. (``Focal''),
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.html
  • BTI; and Cheryl A. Tritt, Counsel for Sprint, AT&T Corp. v. Business Telecom, Inc., File No. EB-01-MD-001 and Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. Business Telecom, Inc., File No. EB-01-MD-002 (dated Feb. 15, 2001). To effectuate further the court's referrals, both AT&T and Sprint filed informal complaints against all of the other CLECs remaining in the Advamtel Litigation pursuant to sections 1.716-18 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-18. AT&T Second Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 5-6, 20-35; Sprint Complaint, ¶ 2, 12-23. This claim appears in Counts I, II, and III of Sprint's Complaint, which we consider collectively rather than individually, and in Count I of AT&T's Second Amended Complaint. AT&T Second Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 36-42. Complainants request that the Commission
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01257.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01257.html
  • In this Order, we deny the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company's (PLDT) petition for reconsideration of our Order canceling forfeitures against World Communications, Inc. (WorldCom) and the Manila Peninsula Hotel (Hotel). The Commission found WorldCom and the Hotel apparently liable for the forfeitures on January 23, 1993, following its investigation of an informal complaint filed by PLDT pursuant to section 1.716 of our rules. The Commission determined that, as alleged in the complaint, the Hotel apparently had charged one of its guests for making two telephone calls to the United States over international private lines (IPLs) provided to the Hotel by Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation on the Philippine end, and WorldCom on the United States end. The Commission further determined
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1065A1.html
  • ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) AT&T Corp., ) ) Complainant, ) v. ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-007 ) CTC Telcom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: May 7, 2002 Released: May 8, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above- captioned matter. On March 16, 2001, CTC Telcom filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1242A1.html
  • ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) AT&T Corp., ) ) Complainant, ) v. ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-007 ) CTC Telcom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: May 23, 2002 Released: May 24, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above- captioned matter. Since the filing of the informal complaint, AT&T and CTC Telcom have engaged in extensive settlement negotiations and have recently reached a settlement agreement. On May 21, 2002, AT&T filed a Consent Motion requesting dismissal of its
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2070A1.html
  • In the Matter of ) ) CTC Communications Corp., ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0001 ) Verizon New England, Inc. and ) Verizon New York, Inc., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Adopted: August 22, 2002 Released: August 27, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 9, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 CTC Communications Corp. (``CTC'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Verizon New England, Inc. and Verizon New York, Inc. (collectively ``Verizon'') in the above-captioned matter. On February 27, 2002, Verizon filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in CTC's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-210A1.html
  • Net2000 Communications of ) Virginia, LLC; ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 AT&T Corp. v. North County ) Communications Corp.; AT&T Corp. v. Winstar Communications, Inc., et al.; AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: January 25, 2002 Released: January 29, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications (``Advamtel''), CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc. (``CFW''), Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc. (``CTSI''), CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Fairpoint Communications Corp. (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''),
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2204A1.html
  • ) Independent Networks Co. v. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0826 AT&T Corp. ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0008 Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. Northern Valley Communications, LLC v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: September 9, 2002 Released: September 10, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: In November and December, 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., Independent Networks Co., Mark Twain Communications Company, and Northern Valley Communications, LLC (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs''), filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2340A1.html
  • No. EB-02-MDIC-0005 AT&T Corp. ) ) Heart of Iowa Communications, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: September 24, 2002 Released: September 25, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., and Independent Networks Co. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above- captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2552A1.html
  • No. EB-02-MDIC-0005 AT&T Corp. ) ) Heart of Iowa Communications, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: October 7, 2002 Released: October 8, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., and Independent Networks Co. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above- captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2697A1.html
  • of this Consent Decree; g) ``Effective Date'' means the date on which the Commission adopts the Adopting Order. h) ``Preferred carrier change'' shall mean an order or request submitted by a carrier to a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') to effect a change in the customer's preferred carrier; i) ``Informal Complaint'' or ``Consumer Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 C.F.R. 1.716; j) ``Formal Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 U.S.C. 208; 9. The Parties agree that the provisions of this Consent Decree shall be subject to final approval by the Bureau by incorporation of such provisions by reference in an Adopting Order of the Bureau. 10. The Parties agree that this Consent Decree shall become effective on the date on
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2758A1.html
  • v. AT&T Corp. ) ) Heart of Iowa Communications, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ) Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: October 21, 2002 Released: October 22, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above- captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3013A1.html
  • AT&T Corp. ) ) Heart of Iowa Communications, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ) Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: November 4, 2002 Released: November 5, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-301A1.html
  • was refusing to pay.13 Shortly thereafter, this Commission released the TSR Wireless Order, in which it resolved numerous issues relating to the propriety of LEC charges to CMRS carriers.14 After the TSR Wireless Order, the NCUC dismissed Concord's complaint.15 Independent of the NCUC proceeding, Metrocall filed an informal complaint with the Commission against Concord in August 2000 pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules.16 On April 6, 2001, Metrocall ``converted'' its informal complaint into the instant formal complaint pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules.17 Metrocall's complaint asserts two claims: (1) that Concord violates section 201(b) of the Act18 and Commission orders by charging recurring fees to Metrocall solely for the use of DID numbers;19 and (2) that Concord
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3182A1.html
  • AT&T Corp. ) ) Heart of Iowa Communications, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ) Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: November 15, 2002 Released: November 18, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3305A1.html
  • v. AT&T Corp. ) ) Heart of Iowa Communications, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ) Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: November 27, 2002 Released: December 2, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3414A1.html
  • to fulfill its obligations under the parties' interconnection agreement to make payments relating to the exchange of certain traffic.3 Verizon filed its answer denying these obligations on September 25, 2002.4 On December 4, 2002, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Convert Case requesting that the Commission convert US LEC's formal complaint into an informal complaint as defined by section 1.716 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716.5 In addition to this request, the parties asked that the filing date of the informal complaint be deemed September 5, 2002, which is the filing date of the formal complaint, and that the Commission extend the six-month period within which the informal complaint must be converted to a formal complaint under sections 1.717-18
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3467A1.html
  • v. AT&T Corp. ) ) Heart of Iowa Communications, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0006 Inc. v. ) AT&T Corp. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 ) Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: December 16, 2002 Released: December 17, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3492A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Clarence Telephone Company, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications ) v. AT&T Corp. ) ORDER Adopted: December 18, 2002 Released: December 20, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-34A1.html
  • Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) WORLDCOM, INC. ) ) ) Complainant, ) ) EB-01-MDIC-1158 v. ) ) VIRGIN ISLANDS TELEPHONE ) CORPORATION ) d/b/a INNOVATIVE TELEPHONE ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: January 8, 2002 Released: January 9, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 28, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716, WorldCom, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation d/b/a Innovative Telephone (``Vitelco'').1 WorldCom alleges that Vitelco has violated the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and the Commission's rules regarding the maximum allowable rate-of-return for local exchange carriers in 47 C.F.R. 65.700 et seq. According to a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-35A1.html
  • Net2000 Communications of ) Virginia, LLC; ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 AT&T Corp. v. North County ) Communications Corp.; AT&T Corp. v. Winstar Communications, Inc., et al.; AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: January 8, 2002 Released: January 9, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications (``Advamtel''), CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc. (``CFW''), Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc. (``CTSI''), CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Fairpoint Communications Corp. (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''),
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-360A1.html
  • EB-01-MDIC-0013 Net2000 Communications of ) Virginia, LLC; ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 AT&T Corp. v. North County Communications Corp.; AT&T Corp. v. Winstar Communications, Inc., et al.; AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: February 14, 2002 Released: February 15, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against Advamtel, LLC d/b/a Plan B Communications (``Advamtel''), CFW Communications Company & CFW Networks, Inc. (``CFW''), Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises & CTSI, Inc. (``CTSI''), CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Fairpoint Communications Corp. (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''),
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-450A1.html
  • EB-01-MDIC-0010 AT&T Corp. v. Intermedia ) Communications, Inc.; ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 ) AT&T Corp. v. Winstar ) Communications, Inc., et al.; ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: February 26, 2002 Released: February 27, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-597A1.html
  • EB-01-MDIC-0010 AT&T Corp. v. Intermedia ) Communications, Inc.; ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 ) AT&T Corp. v. Winstar ) Communications, Inc., et al.; ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: March 12, 2002 Released: March 13, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-721A1.html
  • EB-01-MDIC-0010 AT&T Corp. v. Intermedia ) Communications, Inc.; ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0013 ) AT&T Corp. v. Winstar ) Communications, Inc., et al.; ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 AT&T Corp. v. XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: March 26, 2002 Released: March 27, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-822A1.html
  • EB-01-MDIC-0006 AT&T Corp. v. Consolidated ) Communications Networks, Inc.; ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 AT&T Corp. v. CTC Telecom, ) Inc.; ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0014 AT&T Corp. v. XIT ) Telecommunications & ) Technology, Inc. ORDER Adopted: April 10, 2002 Released: April 11, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-960A1.html
  • ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) AT&T Corp., ) ) Complainant, ) v. ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0007 ) CTC Telcom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: April 25, 2002 Released: April 26, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above- captioned matter. On March 16, 2001, CTC Telcom filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-314A1.html
  • Carbo v. U.S., 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963)); American International Development, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 86 FCC 2d 808, 815, 17 (1981) (noting that the existence of corroborative evidence is a factor to be considered in weighing the evidence presented). See also Contemporary Media, Inc., Decision, 13 FCC Rcd 14,437, 14,457, 39 (1998). 199 See 47 C.F.R. 1.716, 1.717, and 1.718. 200 The informal complaint letters are dated September 15, 1997, are printed on ITC's stationery, and include the name of ITC's president, William J. Nelson. We find credible the affidavit of Pamela S. Wickham, ITC's office manager during the time period at issue, that it was the company's customary practice to send letters out on the date
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1083A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: April 3, 2003 Released: April 4, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1174A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: April 17, 2003 Released: April 21, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-170A1.html
  • Corp. ) ) Forest City Telecom, Inc. v. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0007 AT&T Corp., ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 Clarence Telephone Company, ) Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications v. AT&T Corp. ORDER Adopted: January 21, 2003 Released: January 22, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In November and December 2001 and April 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002 and July 19, 2002, AT&T filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-207A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: January 27, 2003 Released: January 28, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-22A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: January 7, 2003 Released: January 8, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-358A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Clarence Telephone Company, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications ) v. AT&T Corp. ) ORDER Adopted: February 5, 2003 Released: February 6, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-371A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: February 6, 2003 Released: February 7, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4092A1.html
  • version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Ketchikan Internet Services ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-03-MDIC-0015 ) City of Ketchikan, d/b/a ) Ketchikan Public Utilities ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: December 23, 2003 Released: December 23, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 21, 2003, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Ketchikan Internet Services (``KIS'') filed an informal complaint against defendant City of Ketchikan, d/b/a Ketchikan Public Utilities (``KPU'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On May 16, 2003, KPU filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in KIS' Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 KIS must convert
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4110A1.html
  • Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: December 30, 2003 Released: December 31, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-449A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Qwest Corporation, ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0038 ) Cable & Wireless USA, Inc., and ) U.S. South Communications, ) Inc., ) ) Defendants. ORDER Adopted: February 14, 2003 Released: February 24, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 11, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Qwest Corporation (``Qwest'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. (``C&W'') and U.S. South Communications, Inc. (``U.S. South'') in the above- captioned matter.2 U.S. South and C&W filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 on July 12, 2002 and July 15, 2002, respectively, denying the allegations in Qwest's Informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-478A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: February 21, 2003 Released: February 24, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-569A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Clarence Telephone Company, ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications ) v. AT&T Corp. ) ORDER Adopted: February 26, 2003 Released: February 27, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-67A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Qwest Corporation, ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0038 ) Cable & Wireless USA, Inc., and ) U.S. South Communications, ) Inc., ) ) Defendants. ORDER Adopted: January 10, 2003 Released: January 13, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 11, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Qwest Corporation (``Qwest'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. (``C&W'') and U.S. South Communications, Inc. (``U.S. South'') in the above- captioned matter.2 U.S. South and C&W filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 on July 12, 2002 and July 15, 2002, respectively, denying the allegations in Qwest's Informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-787A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: March 14, 2003 Released: March 17, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-827A1.html
  • ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Clarence Telephone Company, ) Inc. d/b/a Cedar ) Communications, ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0040 v. ) ) AT&T Corp., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: March 19, 2003 Released: March 20, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-836A1.html
  • Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, ) Inc., ) ) Complainant, ) ) File No. EB-02-MDIC-0037 v. ) ) Allegiance Telecom, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ORDER Adopted: March 20, 2003 Released: March 21, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1043A1.html
  • Intera Communications Corp., ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-03-MDIC-0022 ) Telstar International, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: April 15, 2004 Released: April 19, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 30, 2003, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules1 alleging that Telstar International, Inc. (``Telstar'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones.2 Telstar replied to the informal complaint on August 16, 2003.3 Therefore, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Complainants were required to convert their informal complaint into
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1099A1.html
  • Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: April 26, 2004 Released: April 26, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-14A1.html
  • 20554 AT&T Corp. and ) AT&T of the Virgin Islands ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0552 ) Virgin Islands Telephone ) Corporation d/b/a/ ) Innovative Telephone ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: January 6, 2004 Released: January 7, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 10, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules,1 AT&T Corp. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, AT&T of the Virgin Islands (``AT&T'' or ``Complainants''), filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation d/b/a Innovative Telephone (``Vitelco'') had unlawful earnings during 1997 and 1998, and requesting that Vitelco be ordered to return a portion of the overearnings.2 Vitelco replied to AT&T's Complaint on July
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1809A1.html
  • requesting such action within sixty (60) days after notice of termination or expiration of the automatic stay in Cable & Wireless' bankruptcy proceedings, rather than filing an entirely new formal complaint.12 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Qwest's and U.S. South's Joint Request for Dismissal With Prejudice as to U.S. South IS GRANTED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1874A1.html
  • Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: June 24, 2004, 2004 Released: June 28, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2837A1.html
  • Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: August 30, 2004 Released: September 1, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2972A1.html
  • coordinating its channel assignments and by extending its coverage into NWMC's protected Cellular Geographic Service Area (``CGSA'') without NWMC's consent.3 By agreement of the parties, the complaint was held in abeyance pending mediation and settlement discussions.4 By letter dated September 7, 2004, counsel for NWMC requested that the formal complaint be reclassified as an informal complaint5 (as defined by section 1.716 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716). Counsel for Cingular informed staff that Cingular does not object to NWMC's request. We are satisfied that granting the Request to Convert will serve the public interest by promoting the settlement of this dispute and by postponing the need for litigation and expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3265A1.html
  • parties and of this Commission until such time as may actually be necessary. We are not satisfied, however, that the additional safeguard requested by ACS is necessary and/or serves the public interest. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716- 18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Claims Against ACS of Fairbanks, Inc. and ACS of Alaska, Inc.; Request to Convert Claims Against ACS of Anchorage, Inc. to Claims in an Informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3394A1.html
  • Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) Informal Complaints filed by ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to MCI, Inc. Against Various Local ) 0057 Exchange Carriers ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: October 26, 2004 Released: October 27, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI is required to convert its
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3467A1.html
  • Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: October 28, 2004 Released: November 1, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3569A1.html
  • 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727, Verizon's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Defer, is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. 29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, Broadview's formal complaint of December 30, 2003 SHALL BE CONVERTED into an informal complaint with a designated filing date of December 30, 2003, and that the formal complaint and answer
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3871A1.html
  • Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) Informal Complaints filed by ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to MCI, Inc. Against Various Local ) 0057 Exchange Carriers ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: December 9, 2004 Released: December 10, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI was required to convert its
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3978A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) Verizon, ) ) File No. EB-04-MDIC-095 Com- ) plainant, ) ) v. ) ) Operator Communications, Inc., ) ) Defen- dant. ORDER Adopted: December 17, 2004 Released: December 20, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 30, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Verizon filed an informal complaint against Operator Communications, Inc., (``OCI'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 16, 2004, Verizon responded to written questions posed by Commission staff, and on September 3, 2004, OCI responded to Verizon's informal complaint. At the request of Commission staff, Verizon submitted a written reply to OCI's response on October 27, 2004.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-577A1.html
  • Verizon Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: February 27, 2004 Released: February 27, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-753A1.html
  • authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice the Complaint against the Remaining Defendants IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Complainants' formal complaint is converted to an informal complaint, and that the formal complaint and answer filed in the above- captioned proceeding satisfy sections 1.716-17 of the Commission's rules, 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-195A1.html
  • 9. The parties stipulate that Vitelco's access earnings exceeded its maximum allowable rate of return during the first six months of 1997.38 In addition, the record clearly indicates that Vitelco's access earnings exceeded its maximum allowable rate of return during the remainder of the 1997-1998 Monitoring Period, as well.39 I.B. Procedural Background 10. On September 10, 2001, pursuant to sections 1.716-1.717 of our rules,40 AT&T filed an informal complaint against Vitelco alleging that Vitelco had earned more than its maximum allowable rate of return, and thus had overcharged AT&T for access services, during the 1997-1998 Monitoring Period.41 Also on September 10, 2001, AT&T and Vitelco moved jointly that the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') instruct Vitelco not to respond to AT&T's informal complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-284A1.html
  • 15, 2004) (``Joint Statement'') at 2, 2. The Complaint uses the term, ``Tel-America'' to refer to either or both Tel-America or Tel- America's parent company, TransTel Communications, Inc. Complaint at 1-2, n.1. 7Informal Complaint, File No. EB-02-MDIC-0093 (filed Nov. 15, 2002) (``Informal Complaint''), attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 5. 847 U.S.C. 208; 47 C.F.R. 1.711. See also 47 C.F.R. 1.716-1.719. 9Informal Complaint at 9; Joint Statement at 2, 3. 10Response to Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-02-MDIC- 0093 (filed Jan. 17, 2003), attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 6, at 9; Joint Statement at 2, 3. 11Letter from Alexander P. Starr, Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Karen Brinkmann, counsel for TelePacific, EB-02-MDIC-0093 (rel. February 26, 2003),
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1324A1.html
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.716-1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.716- 1.718, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Formal Complaint of Broadview Networks, Inc., File No. EB-03- MD-021 (filed Dec. 30, 2003) (``Complaint''). 2 Joint Notice of Withdrawal of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-328A1.html
  • Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Informal Complaints filed by ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to MCI, Inc. Against Various Local ) 0057 Exchange Carriers ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: February 7, 2005 Released: February 8, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI was required to convert its
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-484A1.html
  • Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: February 24, 2005 Released: February 25, 2005 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-48A1.html
  • Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Informal Complaints filed by ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to MCI, Inc. Against Various Local ) 0057 Exchange Carriers ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: January 10, 2005 Released: January 10, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI was required to convert its
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-4A1.html
  • New England, Inc., ) Verizon Southwest, Inc., ) Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc., ) Verizon North, Inc., Verizon ) Virginia, Inc., Verizon South, Inc., Verizon West Virginia, Inc., and GTE Southwest, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Southwest, Defen- dants. ORDER Adopted: January 4, 2005 Released: January 4, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On July 6, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Operator Communications, Inc., (``OCI'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon California, Inc., Verizon Washington, D.C., Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon Delaware, Inc., Verizon Florida, Inc., Verizon Hawaii, Inc., Verizon Northwest, Inc., Verizon New Jersey, Inc., Verizon New England, Inc., Verizon Southwest, Inc., Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc., Verizon North, Inc., Verizon Virginia, Inc., Verizon South, Inc., Verizon West
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-668A1.html
  • Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Informal Complaints filed by ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0003 to MCI, Inc. Against Various Local ) 0057 Exchange Carriers ) File Nos. EB-04-MDIC-0060 to 0064 ORDER Adopted: March 15, 2005 Released: March 15, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,4 MCI was required to convert its
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-6A1.html
  • Communications, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: January 4, 2005 Released: January 5, 2005 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 18, 2002, Judith Judware (``Judware'') filed an informal complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 208, and sections 1.716 - 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718. On March 24, 2003, Verizon submitted its response to the informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainant is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-207A1.html
  • October 1, 2003 tariff filings to reflect that the PICC no longer applies to payphone lines.''20 The Payphone PICC Order went on to state that the Commission ``ma[d]e no finding with respect to the application of PICCs prior to the effective date of this Order.''21 II.C. OCI's Claim for Damages from Verizon 7. On July 6, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of our rules,22 OCI filed an informal complaint against Verizon seeking (i) lost profits and (ii) refunds of the PICCs that Verizon assessed OCI from April 1998 to April 2001.23 OCI contended that the Payphone PICC Order's exemption of payphone lines from PICCs applies retroactively and renders Verizon's PICCs unlawful under sections 201(b) and 276 of the Act. After Verizon
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-228A1.html
  • "initially" refer disputed issues to certain company representatives, and if no resolution was reached within thirty days, either party was permitted to pursue other remedies. The ADR process failed to produce settlement of the disputed issues within 30 days after Dobson initiated the process. 10. On June 24, 2003, Dobson filed an informal complaint at the Commission pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission's rules raising each of the three claims that it asserts in the instant formal Complaint. Specifically, Dobson alleged that BellSouth: (1) failed to pay refunds owed due to BellSouth's use of shared facilities; (2) failed to pay refunds owed to Dobson for reciprocal compensation; and (3) failed to retroactively offer Dobson the ISP Order's rates in Georgia
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-14A1.html
  • the informal complaint process, the complainant can then commence a "formal" complaint process, which resembles commercial litigation in court. 16. Under section 415(b) of the Act, a "complaint" against a carrier seeking recovery of damages must be filed within two years from the time the damages claim accrues. It is well established that "[a]n `informal complaint' filed pursuant to sections 1.716-1.718 of the Commission's rules constitutes a `complaint' within the meaning of section 415 of the Act and thus tolls the running of the two-year limitations period." Under rule 1.718, for purposes of continuing the tolling of the limitations period, the filing date of a formal complaint can "relate back" to the filing date of a prior informal complaint involving the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1366A1.html
  • addresses of record: (1) 860 E 4500 S, Suite 305, Salt Lake City, Utah 84107-3090 and (2) 8494 S 700 E, Suite 150, Sandy, Utah 84070-0541 as well as another known address - 2470 W. Majestic Parkway, Tucson, Arizona 85705. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S: 201-276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716-17. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). G-Five LLC v. Global Access, LD LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, No. EB-07-MDIC-0026, June 14, 2007 ("Notice"). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S:
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-424A1.html
  • West Star Telecom'ns, LLC EB-07-MDIC-0049 Pinnacle Public 12/07/07 West Star EB-07-MDIC-0055 Paytel 12/20/07 West Star Defendant is variously referred to as "West Star," "WestStar," and "Weststar" in the various complaints - see Attachment. For consistency and ease of reference, we will refer to Defendant as "West Star." 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services v. West Star Telecommunications, LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0049 (dated Apr. 4, 2007) ("Notice"). Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-425A1.html
  • Telecommunications, at its address of record, 650 S. Grand Avenue, Ste. 110/111, Los Angeles, CA 90017. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaint Served on WorldOne Telecommunications File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0051 APCC Services, Inc. WorldOne Telecommunications April 2, 2007 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. WorldOne Telecommunications, Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 (Apr. 2, 2007) ("Notice"). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-426A1.html
  • address of record, 15061 Springdale Street, Ste 206, Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1165. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaint Served on International Telecom Exchange File No. Complainant Defendant Service Date EB-06-MDIC-0052 APCC Services, Inc. International Telecom Exchange March 15, 2007 Group, Inc. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0052, (July 7, 2006) ("Notice"). See Appendix. Notice at 2.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-525A1.html
  • Pensacola, FL 32507. 15. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaints against Telefyne Inc. File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0047 APCC Services, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 EB-06-MDIC-0084 G-Five LLC Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 01/31/07 none EB-07-MDIC-0019 PBS TelCom, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services, Inc. v. Telefyne, Inc., Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0047 (Sept. 18, 2007) ("Notice"). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-526A1.html
  • Issa, 360 W. 9th Ave., Escondido, CA 92029. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Appendix Informal Complaints Served on GNCW File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-07-MDIC-0001 PBS TelCom, Inc. Global Network Communication West, Inc. 4/25/07 EB-07-MDIC-0027 C&M Global Network Communication West, Inc. 6/14/07 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). PBS TelCom, Inc. v. Global Network Communications West, Inc., Second Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-07-MDIC-0001 (April 25, 2007) ("Notice") See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-19A1.html
  • Award. See, e.g., Stipulated Facts at 8 (citing 47 U.S.C. 252(e)(6)). For convenience, we refer to the federal district court proceeding in which FeatureGroup IP seeks review of the Texas PUC's Arbitration Award as the "Court Arbitration Review Action." See, e.g., Complaint. AT&T Texas simultaneously filed an informal complaint against FeatureGroup IP under section 208 of the Act and rules 1.716-1.719, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716-1.719. The informal complaint challenges the lawfulness of the SLTS Tariff on several grounds not alleged in the formal Complaint, including that (i) SLTS is an "enhanced service" not eligible for inclusion in a Title II tariff; (ii) the SLTS Tariff violates 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1601(c)(2) by charging connecting carriers for the delivery of calling party number
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da000641.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da000641.txt
  • of this Consent Decree; ``Effective Date'' means the date on which the Commission adopts the Adopting Order. ``PIC Change'' is an order or request transmitted by an interexchange carrier to a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') requesting a change of a customer's primary interexchange and/or intraLATA carrier (``PIC''); ``Informal Complaint'' or ``Customer Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 C.F.R. § 1.716; ``Formal Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 U.S.C. § 208; ``Telemarketing agent'' means a person or entity, or employee thereof, who places telemarketing calls to consumers on behalf of Sprint for the purpose of inducing the consumer to change his or her PIC to Sprint. The Parties agree that the provisions of this Consent Decree shall be subject to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00898cd.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00898cd.txt
  • securities laws and regulations. 26. The Parties agree and acknowledge that this Consent Decree shall constitute a final settlement of the Inquiry. The Bureau will not initiate on its own motion any other enforcement action against Excel, or seek on its own motion any administrative or other penalties from Excel, based on any informal complaint (as defined in 47 C.F.R. §1.716 et seq.), or any claim or allegation arising out of purportedly unauthorized preferred carrier changes that allegedly occurred prior to the Effective Date. 27. The Parties agree that the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree shall remain in effect for two (2) years from the date of the Adopting Order unless a longer period is specified herein. The Parties
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00205.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00205.txt
  • or any wrongdoing. The Parties agree and acknowledge that this Consent Decree shall constitute a final settlement of the Inquiry. The FCC will not initiate on its own motion any other enforcement action against MCI WorldCom, or seek on its own motion any administrative or other penalties from the Company, based on any informal complaint (as defined in 47 C.F.R. §1.716 et. seq.), or any claim or allegation arising out of purportedly unauthorized preferred carrier changes that allegedly occurred prior to the Effective Date. The Parties agree that the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree shall remain in effect for thirty-six (36) months from the Effective Date. Adoption of a Telemarketing Compliance Program Within 30 days of the Effective Date,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/Welcome.html
  • Starr, Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, [21]www.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd, describing the alleged violation of the Communications Act. There is no fee associated with filing an informal complaint. The letter must include the name of the defendant carrier, a complete statement of the facts, and the relief sought. In addition, the complainant may request mediation in the informal complaint letter. Refer to Section 1.716 - 1.718 of the Rules (47 C.F.R. 1.716 - 1.718) for specific details about filing an informal complaint. Once an informal complaint is received, the Division transmits it to the defendant carrier, and typically requires the defendant to submit a response within thirty days. Even before the response deadline, parties are encouraged to explore the possibility of private settlement or
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files06/CREPOR06.PDF
  • Tanzania $4,929,792 0.044.8 0.812.3 42.1 $285,127 0.0 2.6 0.0 3.9 93.4 $45,822 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 29,567,171 0.043.5 0.814.4 41.2 Togo $2,162,427 0.115.7 5.4 2.2 76.6 $419,239 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $4,457 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 21,808,403 0.1 3.8 6.4 2.1 87.7 Tunisia $18,911,511 0.059.7 1.410.2 28.7 $472,505 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 92.5 $4,954 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 94,789,114 0.048.7 1.716.2 33.4 Uganda $5,967,727 0.7 7.6 0.111.6 79.9 $196,100 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 98.2 $214,849 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 60,032,865 0.4 4.5 0.112.6 82.3 Western Sahara $0 $0 $0 0 Zaire $8,381,230 0.010.2 0.3 0.0 89.6 $397,179 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 98.4 $2,602,044 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 30,638,670 0.012.0 0.3 0.0 87.7 Zambia $4,861,900 0.014.2 2.146.6 37.1 $137,258 0.0 0.0 0.0