FCC Web Documents citing 1.718

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 pay refunds owed to Dobson for reciprocal compensation; and (3) failed to retroactively offer Dobson the ISP Order's rates in Georgia and Tennessee. On August 8, 2003, BellSouth filed a response to the Informal Complaint disputing all three claims, and declining to satisfy Dobson's demands for payment of the amounts in issue. On August 22, 2003, pursuant to rule 1.718, the Market Disputes Resolution Division of the Enforcement Bureau sent a letter to Dobson's counsel stating that Dobson had exhausted all remedies under the informal complaint process, and that the Division was closing the informal complaint file. The Informal Complaint Closure Letter explained that, under section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Dobson had the right to file a formal complaint
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.pdf
  • 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. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g.,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.pdf
  • 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. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.pdf
  • 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. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.pdf
  • 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. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.pdf
  • 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 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.pdf
  • 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 Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.pdf
  • Verizon Communications, Inc, et al., Informal Complaint, IC No. 04-I0137661 (Sept. 7, 2004). We note that Complainants' formal complaint was timely filed within six months from the date of the Jan. 7, 2005 informal complaint carrier's report, so that the formal complaint filing is deemed to relate back to the filing date of the informal complaint. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.718. As a result, the limitations period under section 415(b) of the Act extends to two years before the filing of the informal complaint. 47 U.S.C. § 415(b). 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e)(2)(v); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC RCD 8752, 8766, ¶ 24 (1992) (1992 TCPA Order). We note
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.pdf
  • B. Procedural History ........................................................................ ............... 5 DISCUSSION ........................................................................ ........................ 10 A. Network Owes Complainants $2,789,505.84 in Principal, Plus Prejudgment Interest at an Annual Rate of 11.25% .......................................... 10 B. All of Network's Grounds for Eliminating or Reducing the Damages Award Lack Merit ........................................................................ .. 14 1. The Enforcement Bureau did not err in granting APCC's motion for waiver of Rule 1.718 ............................................................ 14 2. APCC's March 2002 Informal Complaint was effectively served ........................................................................ 35 3. The Informal Complaints effectively named NET as a Defendant ........................................................................ .............. 46 4. The statute of limitations does not bar APCC's damages claims ........................................................................ .................. 50 5. No equitable grounds warrant barring APCC's claims .................................... 52 6. Network has failed to meet its burden of proving
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1211A1.txt
  • Indiana, Sprint Corporation and Rochester Telephone Company Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. IC-098-53310 Adopted: June 1, 2000 Released: June 2, 2000 Before the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On October 18, 1999, Indiana Paging Network, Inc. (Indiana Paging) filed a petition for waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules with regard to an informal complaint that Indiana Paging had previously filed against Indiana Bell Telephone Company, an Ameritech Operating Company (Ameritech). On November 2, 1999, Indiana Paging and Ameritech filed a joint letter in which Ameritech consented to Indiana Paging's petition. Specifically, Indiana Paging has sought a waiver of section 1.718(a) which requires the filing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1212A1.txt
  • Indiana, Sprint Corporation and Rochester Telephone Company Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. IC-098-53310 Adopted: June 1, 2000 Released: June 2, 2000 Before the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On October 18, 1999, Indiana Paging Network, Inc. (Indiana Paging) filed a petition for waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules with regard to an informal complaint that Indiana Paging had previously filed against GTE of Indiana (GTE). On November 2, 1999, Indiana Paging and GTE filed a joint letter in which GTE consented to Indiana Paging's petition. Specifically, Indiana Paging has sought a waiver of section 1.718(a) which requires the filing of a formal complaint within
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-923A1.txt
  • REFUNDS OF END USER COMMON LINE CHARGES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. E-89-170 ORDER Adopted: April 24, 2000 Released: April 25, 2000 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 10, 1999, the Enforcement Division of the Common Carrier Bureau released an Order (Division Order) modifying the obligations established in section 1.718(a) of the Commission's rules concerning the deadline for filing formal complaints for certain independent payphone providers that had previously file informal complaints with the Commission. Counsel for some of the independent payphone service providers subject to that order subsequently filed a Petition for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Partial Reconsideration, requesting that the Commission clarify language in the Division Order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1044A1.txt
  • period of a damages complaint, the ALJ must consider the following elements. Complaints for damages are subject to a two-year statute of limitations period starting from the date on which the formal complaint was filed. Several Complainants may have filed informal complaints about improper EUCL charges prior to their filing of formal complaints. The Liability Order states, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, that a formal complaint is deemed to relate back to the filing of an informal complaint if the formal complaint: (1) is filed within six months from the date of the carrier's response to the informal complaint; (2) makes reference to the date of the informal complaint; and, (3) is based on the same cause of
• 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
  • and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC, North County Communications Corp., Winstar Communications, Inc., et al., and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint 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 is required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints relate back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. In light of the parties' continuing efforts to settle these matters and the pendency of other proceedings at
• 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
  • 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 on or before September 22, 2001, to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint. In light of the parties' continuing efforts to settle these matters and the pendency of other proceedings at the
• 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
  • and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC, North County Communications Corp., Winstar Communications, Inc., et al., and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, the Commission granted AT&T's consent motion for additional time to convert the informal complaints,
• 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
  • and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC, North County Communications Corp., Winstar Communications, Inc., et al., and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001 and October 4, 2001, the Commission granted AT&T's consent motions for additional time to
• 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
  • LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, and October 18, 2001, the Commission granted AT&T's unopposed consent motions
• 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
  • LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, and November 2, 2001, the Market Disputes Resolution
• 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
  • after the D.C. Circuit's decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 208 and the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.717 and 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.717, and 1.718 that ACS file its response to AT&T's informal complaint no sooner than sixty (60) days after the D.C. Circuit's decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted, but no later than ninety (90)
• 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
  • after the D.C. Circuit's decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 208 and the authority delegated by Sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.717, and 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.717, and 1.718 that Vitelco respond to AT&T's informal complaint no sooner than ninety (90) days after the D.C. Circuit's decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted, but no later than one hundred and twenty
• 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
  • LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, and November 15, 2001, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2910A1.txt
  • 90 days as provided in the Extension Order makes the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. Indiana Paging is actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings. In light of these efforts, Indiana Paging filed the instant Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon, BellSouth, Sprint and RTC all have consented to the requested thirty day extension. We are satisfied that granting Indiana Paging's petition will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes
• 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
  • 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001, filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, and November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-104A1.txt
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari), and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• 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
  • 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 informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of CTC Telcom's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint. The Market Disputes Resolution Division (``MDRD'') granted AT&T's prior consent motions in this proceeding for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1072A1.txt
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari), and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1890A1.txt
  • Communications Act, as amended (the ``Act''). For reasons of administrative efficiency and because of ongoing settlement discussions, the staff previously extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints. Pursuant to the most recent Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by September 9, 2002, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718. The Commission is currently adjudicating thirteen formal complaints that were recently converted from informal complaints and that raise many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints. The Commission is expected to rule on these liability issues by November 19, 2002, the relevant statutory deadline. We anticipate that the resolution of these legal issues will be relevant to
• 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
  • 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, CTC was required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of Verizon's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 9, 2002, filing date of the informal complaint. Since the filing of the informal complaint, CTC and Verizon have engaged in negotiations to resolve
• 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
  • LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• 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
  • 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 the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the November and December, 2001 and January, 2002, filing dates of the informal complaints. Since the filing of the informal complaints, the Informal Complaint
• 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
  • 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 Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. On September 9,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2511A1.txt
  • File No. EB-02-MDIC-0018 ORDER Adopted: October 2, 2002 Released: October 3, 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, Complainants filed an informal complaint alleging that Dancris is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of the Defendant carrier's report (in this case, April 3, 2002) to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the appropriate time period of the informal complaint. Since March 29, 2002, the parties have engaged in negotiations
• 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
  • 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 Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. In September 2002,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-259A1.txt
  • action today serves the public interest. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 208, section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.3, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.011 and 0.311, that section 1.718(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.718(a), IS HEREBY WAIVED, with regard to the IPP EUCL informal complaints described herein and the deadline for the conversion and filing of these informal complaints into formal complaints is hereby extended to September 9, 2002. This waiver is effective as of the release of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that 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
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-293A1.txt
  • By separate order issued on February 5, 2002, the Enforcement Bureau has extended that filing period to September 9, 2002. . This Notice is issued pursuant to section 4(i) and 4(j) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and 154(j), and rules 0.111, 0.311, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311. By Suzanne Tetreault, Associate Chief, Enforcement Bureau. -FCC- 47 C.F.R. § 1.718. See Enforcement Bureau Staff to Convene Meeting to Discuss Procedures for Resolving End User Common Line Informal Complaints, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 9373 (MDRD 2001); Summary of Enforcement Bureau's Multi-Party Initial Meeting Regarding Procedures for Resolving End User Common Line Informal Complaints, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 11,874 (MDRD 2001). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720 - 1.736. 47 C.F.R.
• 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
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• 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
  • 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 violates section 201(b) of the Act and section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules by charging Metrocall for DID facilities used to transport
• 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
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-323A1.txt
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari), and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• 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
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3342A1.txt
  • 5, 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Cooperative Communications, Inc. (``Cooperative'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3343A1.txt
  • 5, 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CGI Communications, Inc. (``CGI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 16, 2002.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3344A1.txt
  • December 5, 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that WorldLink, Inc. (``WorldLink'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3345A1.txt
  • December 5, 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Viva Telecom (``Viva'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 15, 2002.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3346A1.txt
  • 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ALLTEL Long Distance, Inc. (``ALLTEL'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3401A1.txt
  • 13, 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by December 13, 2002.
• 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
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• 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
  • 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 convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations. Since the filing of the informal complaint, Cedar and
• 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
  • after the D.C. Circuit's decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 208 and the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.717, and 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.717, and 1.718, that Vitelco respond to WorldCom's informal complaint no sooner than ninety (90) days after the D.C. Circuit's decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted, but no later than one hundred and twenty
• 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
  • LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• 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
  • LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• 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
  • 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• 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
  • 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-707A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-707A1.txt
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari), and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• 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
  • 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• 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
  • 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-930A1.txt
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari), and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• 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
  • 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 informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of CTC Telcom's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint. The Market Disputes Resolution Division (``MDRD'') granted AT&T's prior consent motions in this proceeding for
• 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
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1134A1.txt
  • 15, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by April 14, 2003.
• 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
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1187A1.txt
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by April 25, 2003.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1261A1.txt
  • 28, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CCI Communications, Inc., (``CCI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by April 25, 2003.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-160A1.txt
  • January 23, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Viva Telecom (``Viva'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 15, 2002.
• 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
  • 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 in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and April 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1723A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1723A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1723A1.txt
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 18,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1740A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1740A1.txt
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 26,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1750A1.txt
  • 22, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 22, 2003.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1751A1.txt
  • 23, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CCI Communications, Inc., (``CCI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 23,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1811A1.txt
  • 29, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1900A1.txt
  • licensed facilities owned by Neptune, in violation of section 214 of the Act and section 1.767 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. § 214; 47 C.F.R. § 1.767. As of this date, Neptune and ACS have responded to the informal complaint pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.717, but WCI has not. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Notesan originally had to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of the defendant carriers' reports (in this case, Notesan filed on August 30, 2002, and ACS filed on September 4, 2002) to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the filing date of the formal complaint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1975A1.txt
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by June 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1976A1.txt
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by June 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2000A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2000A1.txt
  • in a pending complaint proceeding. For reasons of administrative efficiency and due to ongoing settlement discussions, the staff further extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints. Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by June 30, 2003, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718. On November 19, 2002, the Commission ruled on certain liability issues in thirteen formal complaints that raised many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints. The Commission's resolution of the legal issues in the Liability Order may facilitate the settlement of the pending informal complaints. Moreover, the parties to the thirteen formal complaints have petitioned the United
• 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
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motion for additional time to convert its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2110A1.txt
  • 1, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by June 30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2180A1.txt
  • 3, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by June 30, 2003.
• 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
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. Since the filing of the Informal Complaint, with some assistance from Commission staff,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2377A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2377A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2377A1.txt
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by July 25,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2378A1.txt
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by July 25,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2617A1.txt
  • 11, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by August 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2618A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2618A1.txt
  • 11, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by August 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2736A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2736A1.txt
  • 29, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On December 20, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Orion Telecommunications Corp. (``Orion'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by September 3,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2880A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2880A1.txt
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'' or ``Defendant'') failed to pay dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. As a result of various extensions granted by Commission staff, the Complainants are now required to convert the informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2881A1.txt
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'' or ``Defendant'') failed to pay dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. As a result of various extensions granted by Commission staff, the Complainants are now required to convert the informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3022A1.txt
  • 6, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On December 20, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Orion Telecommunications Corp. (``Orion'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by October 3,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3222A1.txt
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by October 24,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3223A1.txt
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by October 24,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-351A1.txt
  • licensed facilities owned by Neptune, in violation of section 214 of the Act and section 1.767 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. § 214; 47 C.F.R. § 1.767. As of this date, Neptune and ACS have responded to the informal complaint pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.717, but WCI has not. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Notesan must convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of the defendant carriers' reports (in this case, Notesan filed on August 30, 2002, and ACS filed on September 4, 2002) to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the filing date of the formal complaint will relate
• 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
  • 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 convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously granted Cedar's consent motions for additional
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3595A1.txt
  • 7, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On December 20, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Orion Telecommunications Corp. (``Orion'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, following a series of extensions granted by Commission staff, the Complainants were required to convert the
• 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
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motion for additional time to convert its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3849A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3849A1.txt
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by December 5,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3850A1.txt
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by December 5,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-406A1.txt
  • , 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 13, 2003.
• 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
  • 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 its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of KPU's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 21, 2003 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. In a letter dated July 28, 2003, Commission staff informed the parties that
• 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
  • 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 such informal
• 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
  • 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. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Qwest must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of U.S. South's and C&W's reports to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the June 11, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted Qwest's consent motion for additional time
• 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
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• 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
  • 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 convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously granted Cedar's consent motions for additional
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-607A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-607A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-607A1.txt
  • 28, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CCI Communications, Inc., (``CCI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 28, 2003.
• 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
  • 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. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Qwest must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of U.S. South's and C&W's reports to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the June 11, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. Since the filing of the Informal Complaint, Qwest has sought
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-75A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-75A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-75A1.txt
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ALLTEL Long Distance, Inc. (``ALLTEL'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-76A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-76A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-76A1.txt
  • January 13, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that WorldLink, Inc. (``WorldLink'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-77A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-77A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-77A1.txt
  • 13, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CGI Communications, Inc. (``CGI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 16, 2002.
• 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
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-78A1.txt
  • 13, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Cooperative Communications, Inc. (``Cooperative'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.
• 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
  • 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 convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously granted Cedar's consent motions for additional
• 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
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-861A1.txt
  • 25, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CCI Communications, Inc., (``CCI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by March 21, 2003.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-875A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-875A1.txt
  • 27, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'')alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by March 26, 2003.
• 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
  • 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 a formal complaint by February 16, 2004, or their informal complaint would be deemed to have been abandoned. Since Telstar's August 16, 2003 response, the parties have engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the informal complaint. On March 8, 2004, the parties participated in a
• 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
  • 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 such informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1450A1.txt
  • in a pending complaint proceeding. For reasons of administrative efficiency and to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions, the staff further extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints. Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by June 30, 2004, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718. On November 19, 2002, the Commission ruled on certain liability issues in thirteen formal complaints that raised many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints. The parties to the thirteen formal complaints petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review the Commission's Liability Order, and on April 30, 2004, the Court
• 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
  • 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 11, 2003. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by January 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1749A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1749A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1749A1.txt
  • Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 30, 2003, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint 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 Complaint on August 16, 2003. Therefore, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants were required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 16, 2004, or their informal complaint would be deemed to have been abandoned. Since Telstar's response, the parties have engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the complaint. Consequently, on February 5, 2004, APCC sought a waiver of section 1.718
• 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
  • South, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (filed June 21, 2004) (``Joint Request''). Id. On June 22, 2004, Commission staff advised counsel for Qwest and counsel-of-record for Cable & Wireless by telephone that the Commission would be taking this action, and neither party filed any objections with the Commission to this approach. This action also does not affect the relation-back provision of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules with respect to Qwest's prior informal complaint in this matter. In the event that the informal complaint is converted back to a formal complaint, it will proceed under its current file number, File No. EB-03-MD-004. This informal complaint file number is the same number assigned to Qwest's original informal complaint, which Qwest timely converted to a
• 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
  • 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 such informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2000A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2000A1.txt
  • Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 30, 2003, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint 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 Complaint on August 16, 2003. Therefore, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants were required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 16, 2004, or their informal complaint would be deemed to have been abandoned. Since Telstar's response, the parties have engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the complaint. Consequently, on February 5, 2004, APCC sought a waiver of section 1.718
• 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
  • 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 such informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3167A1.txt
  • a pending complaint proceeding. For reasons of administrative efficiency and to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions, the Enforcement Bureau further extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints. Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by October 28, 2004, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718. On November 19, 2002, the Commission ruled on certain liability issues in thirteen formal complaints that raised many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints. The parties to the thirteen formal complaints petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review the Commission's Liability Order, and on April 30, 2004, the Court
• 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
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of the Defendants' reports (i.e., by October 29, 2004) to ensure that the formal complaints relates back to the May 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. On October 21, 2004, MCI filed a consent motion requesting waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-343A1.txt
  • Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 30, 2003, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint 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 Complaint on August 16, 2003. Therefore, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants must convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 16, 2004, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. Since the filing of the informal complaint, the parties have engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the complaint. Consequently, on February 5, 2004, APCC filed a Request for Extension
• 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
  • 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 such informal
• 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
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the May 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. On October 26, 2003, at the parties' request, the Commission waived section 1.1718 of the
• 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
  • 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. Both parties agreed to participate in FCC-supervised mediation, which was initially scheduled for December 23, 2004. At the request of the parties, the mediation session was rescheduled for January 11, 2005. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Verizon is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint by December 30, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaint relates back to the June 30, 2004 filing date of the informal complaint On December 16, 2004, Verizon, with the consent of OCI, requested that the FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4022A1.txt
  • a pending complaint proceeding. For reasons of administrative efficiency and to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions, the Enforcement Bureau further extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints. Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by January 21, 2005, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718. On November 19, 2002, the Commission ruled on certain liability issues in thirteen formal complaints that raised many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints. The parties to the thirteen formal complaints petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review the Commission's Liability Order, and on April 30, 2004, the Court
• 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
  • 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 such informal
• 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
  • informed the parties, we do this for purposes of internal docket organization only, and we do not intend this action to affect the rights and obligations of any party. When the proceeding resumes, it will do so under its current designation, File No. EB-03-MD-018. The relation of this formal complaint to prior informal complaints, including the relation-back provision of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, will be unaffected by this purely organizational action. While the Defendants in Bankruptcy remain in bankruptcy the Complainants must file a report on the status of the bankruptcy proceedings every four months. Failure to file such a status report will result in dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to
• 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
  • a provider of telecommunications service. The new section of the informal complaint rules cross-referenced the Commission's slamming liability rules at part 64, subpart K, and provided that a subscriber unsatisfied with the resolution of an informal slamming complaint had 45 days to file a formal complaint. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 208, 258. Section Number and Title: 1.716 Form. 1.717 Procedure. 1.718 Unsatisfied informal complaints; formal complaints relating back to the filing dates of informal complaints. 1.719 Informal complaints filed pursuant to section 258. Brief Description: These rules set forth many of the procedures that must be followed in order to prosecute and/or defend a formal complaint filed against a common carrier pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2796A1.txt
  • which shall briefly state the facts, whereupon a statement of the complaint thus made shall be forwarded by the Commission to such common carrier, who shall be called upon to satisfy the complaint or to answer the same in writing within a reasonable time to be specified by the Commission. Section 208(a). 47 U.S.C. § 415. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.718 (a formal complaint will relate back to the filing date of the informal complaint). See 47 U.S.C. § 411(a). Indeed, since the Transfer of Control Application has already been granted pursuant to our streamlined procedures, it may no longer be simply removed from streamlining. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2796 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2796 \
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.txt
  • ) Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, ) ) Defendants. ) order Adopted: October 26, 2005 Released: October 27, 2005 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: Introduction In this Order, pursuant to sections 1.3 and 1.727 of the Commission's rules, we grant in substantial part a motion filed by Complainants (collectively, ``APCC'') for waiver of the six-month filing deadline set forth in section 1.718 of the Commission's rules. For statute of limitations purposes, rule 1.718 allows the filing date of a formal complaint to ``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint regarding the same claim, but only if, inter alia, the formal complaint is filed within six months of the defendant's response to the informal complaint. Here, APCC's counsel attempted
• 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
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. At the parties' prior requests, the Commission previously waived section 1.718 of the Commission's rules
• 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
  • 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 such informal
• 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
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. On October 26, 2003, at the parties' request, the Commission waived section 1.718 of the
• 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
  • above-captioned matter. On July 16, 2004, OCI responded to written questions posed by Commission staff, and on September 3, 2004, Verizon responded to OCI's informal complaint. Both parties agreed to participate in FCC-supervised mediation, which was initially scheduled for December 23, 2004. At the request of the parties, the mediation session was rescheduled for January 11, 2005. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, OCI is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint by January 6, 2005 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaint relates back to the July 6, 2004 filing date of the informal complaint. On December 23, 2004, OCI, with the consent of Verizon, requested that the FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-4A1_Erratum.doc
  • above-captioned matter. On July 16, 2004, OCI responded to written questions posed by Commission staff, and on September 3, 2004, Verizon responded to OCI's informal complaint. Both parties agreed to participate in FCC-supervised mediation, which was initially scheduled for December 23, 2004. At the request of the parties, the mediation session was rescheduled for January 11, 2005. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, OCI is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint by January 6, 2005 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaint relates back to the July 6, 2004 filing date of the informal complaint. On December 23, 2004, OCI, with the consent of Verizon, requested that the FCC
• 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
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. At the parties' prior requests, the Commission previously waived section 1.718 of the Commission's rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-674A1.txt
  • ``Act''). In a series of orders issued since the filing of these informal complaints, the Bureau has continued to extend the six-month period for converting the informal complaints into formal complaints. Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by April 22, 2005, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718. On April 26, 2002, thirteen IPPs converted their pending informal complaints and filed formal complaints challenging the LECs' imposition of the EUCL charge. On November 19, 2002, the Commission issued an order concluding the liability phase of the proceeding, finding that the defendant LECs violated Section 201(b) of the Act and Part 69 of the Commission's rules by improperly assessing
• 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
  • 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 such informal
• 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 pay refunds owed to Dobson for reciprocal compensation; and (3) failed to retroactively offer Dobson the ISP Order's rates in Georgia and Tennessee. On August 8, 2003, BellSouth filed a response to the Informal Complaint disputing all three claims, and declining to satisfy Dobson's demands for payment of the amounts in issue. On August 22, 2003, pursuant to rule 1.718, the Market Disputes Resolution Division of the Enforcement Bureau sent a letter to Dobson's counsel stating that Dobson had exhausted all remedies under the informal complaint process, and that the Division was closing the informal complaint file. The Informal Complaint Closure Letter explained that, under section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Dobson had the right to file a formal complaint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-989A1.txt
  • Commission''); 47 C.F.R. §1.717 (``The carrier will, within such time as may be prescribed, advise the Commission in writing, with a copy to the complainant, of its satisfaction of the complaint or of its refusal or inability to do so.''). Commission practice has established 30 days as the standard period for carrier responses to informal consumer complaints. Id. 47 C.F.R. §1.718. 47 C.F.R. §1.717. Establishment of Rules Governing Procedures To Be Followed When Informal Complaints Are Filed By Consumers Against Entities Regulated by the Commission, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 3919, 3932 (2002). 47 U.S.C. §503(b); 47 C.F.R. §1.80(b)(2). The Commission's rules establish $4,000 as the base forfeiture for a failure to respond to
• 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
  • 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. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g.,
• 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
  • 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. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d
• 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
  • 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. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d
• 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
  • 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. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765,
• 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
  • 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 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
• 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
  • 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 Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.txt
  • Verizon Communications, Inc, et al., Informal Complaint, IC No. 04-I0137661 (Sept. 7, 2004). We note that Complainants' formal complaint was timely filed within six months from the date of the Jan. 7, 2005 informal complaint carrier's report, so that the formal complaint filing is deemed to relate back to the filing date of the informal complaint. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.718. As a result, the limitations period under section 415(b) of the Act extends to two years before the filing of the informal complaint. 47 U.S.C. § 415(b). 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e)(2)(v); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC RCD 8752, 8766, ¶ 24 (1992) (1992 TCPA Order). We note
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284321A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284321A2.txt
  • $20,186,151 0.026.4 4.213.9 55.5 $373,688 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.6 93.7 $19,308 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 99.9 174,070,482 0.014.311.814.1 59.9 United Kingdom $283,227,135 1.435.2 0.220.8 42.4 $35,778,792 0.020.9 0.021.7 57.4 $68,760,392 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 4,530,798,066 0.518.2 0.933.1 47.3 Western Europe $946,271,319 0.530.3 1.118.1 50.0 $103,381,629 0.021.5 0.025.7 52.8 $181,595,458 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 13,760,487,165 0.221.9 2.129.5 46.3 Algeria $7,190,918 0.024.9 1.718.9 54.4 $561,771 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $27,977 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 76,845,009 0.016.5 1.617.8 64.1 Angola $6,702,223 0.023.6 6.1 7.9 62.4 $142,872 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $22,706 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 26,262,698 0.014.910.016.6 58.5 Benin $2,187,003 0.0 6.1 7.243.2 43.5 $92,925 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 95.2 $128 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 27,092,126 0.0 2.1 8.648.6 40.7 Botswana $5,664,507 0.876.5 0.0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286624A1.pdf
  • formal complaint," and "[s]uch filing will be deemed to relate back to the filing date of the informal complaint" if, inter alia, it "[i]s filed within 6 months from the date of the carrier's report"; but "[i]f no formal complaint is filed within the 6-month period, the complainant will be deemed to have abandoned the unsatisfied informal complaint." Id. § 1.718. However, "[a]ny provision of the [FCC's] rules may be waived by the Commission on its own motion or on petition if good cause therefor is shown." Id. § 1.3. review the record, we cannot conclude it was raised by necessary implication. Unlike MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 10 F.3d 842 (D.C. Cir. 1993), cited by NET, where the FCC relied
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-252A1.txt
  • each petition objects to portions of the following conclusions from that order: In light of the foregoing, we reject BellSouth's assertion that the Commission's rules prevent a complainant who has filed a formal complaint within six months of the carrier's response to its informal complaint from recovering damages dating back two years from the filing of its informal complaint. Section 1.718 clearly provides for such ``relating back.'' Similarly, we reject complainants' argument that this ``relating back'' provision is dependent upon when the Commission has ``disposed'' of an informal complaint. Rather, the clear language of section 1.718 of the rules allows for ``relating back'' of damages only if a complainant files a formal complaint within 6 months ``from the date of the
• 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
  • 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 consumers, carriers
• 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
  • late 1997 through 1998 raising claims similar to those asserted by CFC. Because the issues raised by the IPPs in their informal complaints were similar to those being considered by the Commission in the remand proceeding, for administrative efficiency, Commission staff issued a waiver order tolling for a number of informal complaints the six-month relation back requirement contained in Section 1.718 of the Commission's rules. Pursuant to the waiver order, any informal complaint relating to issues raised in the CFC proceeding that had to be converted to a formal complaint pursuant to Section 1.718 after June 15, 1998, would be deemed to relate back to the filing date of the relevant informal complaint if it was filed no later than 90
• 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
  • What other procedural assistance should the Commission offer to consumers, as well as state and local governments? 7. Time Period for Relating Back of Formal Complaints We also seek comment on a specific proposal contained in the 1994 NPRM relating to a complainant's right to file a formal section 208 complaint based on an unsatisfied informal section 208 complaint. Section 1.718 of the common carrier complaint rules provides that a complainant that is not satisfied with a carrier's resolution of an informal section 208 complaint must file a formal complaint within six months of the carrier's report in order to continue prosecution of the complaint and to continue to use the filing date of the informal complaint for statute of limitation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-97A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-97A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-97A1.txt
  • year) City Baseline (Rain Only) Rain plus MVDDS (using regional EPFD) Rain plus MVDDS (assuming 10% limit) Increase in Outage (using regional EPFD) Difference Between Rain plus MVDDS and Baseline (rain only) Rain plus MVDDS Difference between Regional EPFD and assumed 10% limit Increase in Outage Over Baseline (using regional EPFD) Availability Outage Availability Outage Availability Outage (%) Seattle* 98.282 1.718 98.108 1.892 97.756 2.244 0.525 0.352 30.563 Los Angeles 99.693 0.307 99.662 0.338 99.659 0.341 0.033 0.002 10.869 Miami 99.847 0.153 99.832 0.168 99.840 0.160 0.007 (0.009) 4.447 Kansas City 99.902 0.098 99.893 0.107 99.896 0.104 0.007 (0.003) 6.752 Detroit 99.948 0.052 99.942 0.058 99.944 0.056 0.004 (0.002) 7.048 Washington 99.966 0.034 99.963 0.037 99.965 0.035 0.002 (0.002) 5.030 New
• 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
  • 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 responded by denying OCI's claim, OCI ``converted'' its informal complaint to a formal complaint pursuant to section 1.718 of our rules. Verizon asserts three defenses to OCI's claim. First, Verizon argues that the two-year statute of limitations in section 415 of the Act bars OCI's claim, because the claim accrued upon OCI's receipt of each PICC bill, and OCI received the last such bill in April 2001, much more than two years before OCI filed the July 6,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-139A1.txt
  • Damages, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed April 4, 2005) (``Supplemental Complaint''). APCC v. NetworkIP, LLC, Letter from Radhika Karmarkar, FCC, to Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (rel. July 8, 200[3]); APCC v. NetworkIP, LLC, Letter from Radhika Karmarkar, FCC, to Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (rel. June 13, 2003). The first motion seeks waiver of the ``relation back'' deadline in 47 C.F.R. § 1.718, Complainants' Motion for Partial Waiver of Section 1.718 of the Commission's Rules, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed June 3, 2003); and the second motion seeks permission to file a reply regarding Network's response to the first motion. Complainants' Conditional Motion for Leave to File Reply, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed June 17, 2003). Application at 5-6. See id. at 4, 8-9. Application
• 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
  • B. Procedural History ........................................................................ ............... 5 DISCUSSION ........................................................................ ........................ 10 A. Network Owes Complainants $2,789,505.84 in Principal, Plus Prejudgment Interest at an Annual Rate of 11.25% .......................................... 10 B. All of Network's Grounds for Eliminating or Reducing the Damages Award Lack Merit ........................................................................ .. 14 1. The Enforcement Bureau did not err in granting APCC's motion for waiver of Rule 1.718 ............................................................ 14 2. APCC's March 2002 Informal Complaint was effectively served ........................................................................ 35 3. The Informal Complaints effectively named NET as a Defendant ........................................................................ .............. 46 4. The statute of limitations does not bar APCC's damages claims ........................................................................ .................. 50 5. No equitable grounds warrant barring APCC's claims .................................... 52 6. Network has failed to meet its burden of proving
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-222A1.txt
  • Order). 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(a)(2). See Informal Complaints filed by MCI, Inc. Against Various Local Exchange Carriers, File Nos. EB-04-MDIC 0003 to 0064 (filed Mar. 12, 2004). Since filing these complaints, MCI has not taken any further action at the Commission to pursue the matters complained of in those complaints, and they have been administratively closed. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.718, which requires the conversion of informal complaints to formal complaints within six months of the date of defendants' report to ensure that the formal complaints relate back to the filing date of the informal complaints for purposes of statute of limitations. See id. See id. Petition for Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 94-129, filed February 1, 2005, by 3 Rivers
• 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
  • 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 208 complaints can only be brought against common carriers. See 47 U.S.C. § 208(a). Parties seeking relief against an interconnected VoIP provider for alleged violations of our signaling rules could seek
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.wp
  • LECs and to the Fletcher Companies' billing agents. 16 The Commission has established rules and procedures that enable consumers to bring to the Commission's attention allegations of misconduct by carriers and to obtain relief from rates and practices found to be unlawful or otherwise contrary to the public interest. See 47 U.S.C. § 208; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716- 1.718. 17 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. Section 1.717 provides in pertinent part: [T]he Commission will forward informal complaints to the appropriate carrier for investigation. The carrier will, within such time as may be prescribed, advise the Commission in writing, with a copy to the complainant, of its 4 verification procedures before submitting PIC-change requests to LECs on behalf of consumers.12 3.
• 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
  • 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 and consumer
• 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
  • 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 consumers, carriers
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/209968-1.pdf
  • 30, 1998 Page 23 To avoid needlessly drawing out the complaint process, a complainant should also be required to request formal proceedings within six months of the date that the respondent filed its answer in the informal proceeding. See NPRM ¶ 154. Such a requirement would be consistent with the standard that applies to Section 208 complaints. 47 C.F.R. § 1.718.16 Finally, in determining whether to impose a filing fee, the FCC must ensure that there is parity among the defendants to the Section 255 complaint. As the Commission notes, NPRM ¶ 155, Section 8 of the Communications Act imposes a filing fee on all formal complaints against common carriers. 47 U.S.C. § 158(g). A substantial portion of Section 255 complaints
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210019-1.pdf
  • between the informal and formal complaint process imposes undue costs upon carriers, complainants and the Commission. Without finality,it will be hard to define specific obligations under Section 255 to ensure continued compliance. There are substantial costs to open ended litigation. The Commission should therefore impose limitations on complaints consistent with the principles of res judicata to foreclose endless appeals. Section 1.718 of the Commission's rules47 provides a useful model: Any complainant who is unsatisfied with the results in the informal complaint process has six months to file a formal complaint on the same access issue, or the matter is deemed closed. Finally,consistent with principles of administrative convenience,the Commission should not conduct a review of complaints involving the same issues if it
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210031-1.pdf
  • proceed with dispute resolution processes within six months of the respondent's filing of an action report is consistent with Section 1.7 18 of the Commission's Rules which limits the filing of formal complaints, subsequent to the filing of an informal complaint, to six months from the date of a common carrier's report answering the informal complaint. See 47 U.S.C. 4 1.718. 28 Although PClA supports the concept of ADR for Section 255 disputes, PCIA also realizes that there are currently no "experts" in the field of telecommunications accessibility. The ability to assess whether it is readily achievable to incorporate a given accessibility function into a particular service or piece of equipment is an extremely complex task, and thus, ADR may not
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210099-1.pdf
  • complaint.Nextel agrees that these complaints should be addressed and resolved expeditiously;30 days is more reasonable and would protectagainstthe likelihood of inaccurate or incomplete responses prompted by afive-day deadline. Carriers and manufacturers also are entitled to assurance that a proceeding has -ii- reached its conclusion. A reasonable statute of limitations, e.g. two years,should apply to all Section 255 complaints, and Section 1.718 of the Commission's rules should apply to these complaints, thus requiring complainants,unsatisfied with the results of an informal complaint,to file a formal complaint within six months of the informal complaint resolution. -iii- Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Washington, D.C. In the Matter of Implementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Access to Telecommunications Services, Telecommunications Equipment, and Customer
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/213326-1.pdf
  • the complaint process with standing related disputes. In reality, a lack of standing requirement will open the floodgates to litigation, compromise the of the Commission's Rules which limits the filing of formal complaints, subsequent to the filing of an informal complaint, to six months from the date of a common carrier's report answering the informal complaint. See 47 U.S.C. 5 1.718. 31 See e.g., TIA at 77-78; AirTouch at 7; USTA at 14; SBC at 20. 13 grounds for cooperative agreements, and mire legitimate complaints in a morass of frivolous and spurious complaints. Thus, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the importance of such prudential considerations and preserved the "autonomy of those most likely to be affected" by adjudication.32 Similarly, PCIA,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011044.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011044.html
  • period of a damages complaint, the ALJ must consider the following elements. Complaints for damages are subject to a two-year statute of limitations period starting from the date on which the formal complaint was filed. Several Complainants may have filed informal complaints about improper EUCL charges prior to their filing of formal complaints. The Liability Order states, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, that a formal complaint is deemed to relate back to the filing of an informal complaint if the formal complaint: (1) is filed within six months from the date of the carrier's response to the informal complaint; (2) makes reference to the date of the informal complaint; and, (3) is based on the same cause of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012158.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012158.html
  • and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC, North County Communications Corp., Winstar Communications, Inc., et al., and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint 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 is required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints relate back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. In light of the parties' continuing efforts to settle these matters and the pendency of other proceedings at
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012159.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012159.html
  • 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 on or before September 22, 2001, to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint. In light of the parties' continuing efforts to settle these matters and the pendency of other proceedings at the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012428.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012428.pdf
  • and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC, North County Communications Corp., Winstar Communications, Inc., et al., and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001 and October 4, 2001, the Commission granted AT&T's consent motions for additional time to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012551.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012551.pdf
  • LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, and October 18, 2001, the Commission granted AT&T's unopposed consent motions
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-104A1.html
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari),6 and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1065A1.html
  • 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 its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of CTC Telcom's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint. The Market Disputes Resolution Division (``MDRD'') granted AT&T's prior consent motions in this proceeding for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1072A1.html
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari),6 and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1890A1.html
  • Communications Act, as amended (the ``Act'').3 For reasons of administrative efficiency and because of ongoing settlement discussions, the staff previously extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints.4 Pursuant to the most recent Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by September 9, 2002, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718.5 2. The Commission is currently adjudicating thirteen formal complaints that were recently converted from informal complaints and that raise many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints.6 The Commission is expected to rule on these liability issues by November 19, 2002, the relevant statutory deadline. We anticipate that the resolution of these legal issues will be relevant
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2070A1.html
  • 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 CTC was required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of Verizon's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 9, 2002, filing date of the informal complaint. Since the filing of the informal complaint, CTC and Verizon have engaged in negotiations to resolve
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-210A1.html
  • LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2204A1.html
  • 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 the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the November and December, 2001 and January, 2002, filing dates of the informal complaints. Since the filing of the informal complaints, the Informal Complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2340A1.html
  • 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 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. On September 9,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2511A1.html
  • Dancris ) ORDER Adopted: October 2, 2002 Released: October 3, 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, Complainants filed an informal complaint alleging that Dancris is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of the Defendant carrier's report (in this case, April 3, 2002) to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the appropriate time period of the informal complaint. 2. Since March 29, 2002, the parties have engaged in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2552A1.html
  • 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 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. In September 2002,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-259A1.html
  • that our action today serves the public interest. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 208, section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.011 and 0.311, that section 1.718(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.718(a), IS HEREBY WAIVED, with regard to the IPP EUCL informal complaints described herein and the deadline for the conversion and filing of these informal complaints into formal complaints is hereby extended to September 9, 2002. This waiver is effective as of the release of this Order. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2758A1.html
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3013A1.html
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-301A1.html
  • 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 violates section 201(b) of the Act and section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules20 by charging Metrocall for DID facilities used to transport
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3182A1.html
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-323A1.html
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari),6 and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3305A1.html
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3342A1.html
  • 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Cooperative Communications, Inc. (``Cooperative'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3343A1.html
  • 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CGI Communications, Inc. (``CGI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 16, 2002.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3344A1.html
  • 5, 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that WorldLink, Inc. (``WorldLink'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3345A1.html
  • 5, 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Viva Telecom (``Viva'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 15, 2002.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3346A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ALLTEL Long Distance, Inc. (``ALLTEL'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3401A1.html
  • 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by December 13, 2002.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3467A1.html
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3492A1.html
  • 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 convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations. 2. Since the filing of the informal complaint, Cedar
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-34A1.html
  • after the D.C. Circuit's decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 208 and the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.717, and 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.717, and 1.718, that Vitelco respond to WorldCom's informal complaint no sooner than ninety (90) days after the D.C. Circuit's decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted, but no later than one hundred and twenty (120)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-35A1.html
  • LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-360A1.html
  • LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-450A1.html
  • 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-597A1.html
  • 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-707A1.html
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari),6 and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-721A1.html
  • 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-822A1.html
  • 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-930A1.html
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari),6 and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-960A1.html
  • 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 its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of CTC Telcom's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint. The Market Disputes Resolution Division (``MDRD'') granted AT&T's prior consent motions in this proceeding for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-314A1.html
  • late 1997 through 1998 raising claims similar to those asserted by CFC.44 Because the issues raised by the IPPs in their informal complaints were similar to those being considered by the Commission in the remand proceeding, for administrative efficiency, Commission staff issued a waiver order tolling for a number of informal complaints the six-month relation back requirement contained in Section 1.718 of the Commission's rules.45 Pursuant to the waiver order, any informal complaint relating to issues raised in the CFC proceeding that had to be converted to a formal complaint pursuant to Section 1.718 after June 15, 1998, would be deemed to relate back to the filing date of the relevant informal complaint if it was filed no later than 90
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1083A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1134A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by April 14, 2003.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1174A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1187A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by April 25, 2003.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1261A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CCI Communications, Inc., (``CCI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by April 25, 2003.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-160A1.html
  • 23, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Viva Telecom (``Viva'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 15, 2002.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-170A1.html
  • 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 in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and April 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1723A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 18,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1740A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 26,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1750A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 22, 2003.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1751A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CCI Communications, Inc., (``CCI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 23,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1811A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 30,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1900A1.html
  • of certain licensed facilities owned by Neptune, in violation of section 214 of the Act and section 1.767 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. 214; 47 C.F.R. 1.767. As of this date, Neptune and ACS have responded to the informal complaint pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717, but WCI has not. 2. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 Notesan originally had to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of the defendant carriers' reports (in this case, Notesan filed on August 30, 2002, and ACS filed on September 4, 2002) to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the filing date of the formal complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1975A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by June 20,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1976A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by June 20,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2000A1.html
  • in a pending complaint proceeding.4 For reasons of administrative efficiency and due to ongoing settlement discussions, the staff further extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints.5 Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by June 30, 2003, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718.6 2. On November 19, 2002, the Commission ruled on certain liability issues in thirteen formal complaints that raised many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints.7 The Commission's resolution of the legal issues in the Liability Order may facilitate the settlement of the pending informal complaints. Moreover, the parties to the thirteen formal complaints have petitioned the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-207A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motion for additional time to convert its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2110A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by June 30,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2180A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by June 30, 2003.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-22A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. Since the filing of the Informal Complaint, with some assistance from Commission staff,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2377A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by July 25,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2378A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by July 25,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2617A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by August 11,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2618A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by August 11,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2736A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On December 20, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Orion Telecommunications Corp. (``Orion'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by September 3,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2880A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'' or ``Defendant'') failed to pay dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. As a result of various extensions granted by Commission staff, the Complainants are now required to convert the informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2881A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'' or ``Defendant'') failed to pay dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. As a result of various extensions granted by Commission staff, the Complainants are now required to convert the informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3022A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On December 20, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Orion Telecommunications Corp. (``Orion'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by October 3,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3222A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by October 24,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3223A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by October 24,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-351A1.html
  • of certain licensed facilities owned by Neptune, in violation of section 214 of the Act and section 1.767 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. 214; 47 C.F.R. 1.767. As of this date, Neptune and ACS have responded to the informal complaint pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717, but WCI has not. 2. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 Notesan must convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of the defendant carriers' reports (in this case, Notesan filed on August 30, 2002, and ACS filed on September 4, 2002) to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the filing date of the formal complaint will relate
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-358A1.html
  • 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 convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously granted Cedar's consent motions for additional
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3595A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On December 20, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Orion Telecommunications Corp. (``Orion'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, following a series of extensions granted by Commission staff, the Complainants were required to convert the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-371A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motion for additional time to convert its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3849A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by December 5,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3850A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by December 5,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-406A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 13, 2003.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4092A1.html
  • 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 its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of KPU's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 21, 2003 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. In a letter dated July 28, 2003, Commission staff informed the parties that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4110A1.html
  • 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 informal complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-449A1.html
  • 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 Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 Qwest must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of U.S. South's and C&W's reports to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the June 11, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted Qwest's consent motion for additional time
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-478A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-569A1.html
  • 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 convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously granted Cedar's consent motions for additional
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-607A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CCI Communications, Inc., (``CCI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 28, 2003.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-67A1.html
  • 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 Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 Qwest must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of U.S. South's and C&W's reports to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the June 11, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. Since the filing of the Informal Complaint, Qwest has sought
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-75A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ALLTEL Long Distance, Inc. (``ALLTEL'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-76A1.html
  • 13, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that WorldLink, Inc. (``WorldLink'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-77A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CGI Communications, Inc. (``CGI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 16, 2002.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-787A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-78A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Cooperative Communications, Inc. (``Cooperative'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-827A1.html
  • 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 convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously granted Cedar's consent motions for additional
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-836A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-861A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CCI Communications, Inc., (``CCI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by March 21, 2003.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-875A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'')alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by March 26, 2003.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1043A1.html
  • 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 a formal complaint by February 16, 2004, or their informal complaint would be deemed to have been abandoned.4 2. Since Telstar's August 16, 2003 response, the parties have engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the informal complaint.5 On March 8, 2004, the parties participated in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1099A1.html
  • 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 informal complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1450A1.html
  • in a pending complaint proceeding.4 For reasons of administrative efficiency and to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions, the staff further extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints.5 Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by June 30, 2004, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718.6 2. On November 19, 2002, the Commission ruled on certain liability issues in thirteen formal complaints that raised many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints.7 The parties to the thirteen formal complaints petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review the Commission's Liability Order,8 and on April 30, 2004, the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-14A1.html
  • 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 11, 2003.3 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,4 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by January 12,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1749A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 30, 2003, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint 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.1 Telstar replied to the Complaint on August 16, 2003.2 Therefore, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants were required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 16, 2004, or their informal complaint would be deemed to have been abandoned.3 2. Since Telstar's response, the parties have engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the complaint.4 Consequently, on February 5, 2004, APCC sought a waiver of section
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1809A1.html
  • EB-03-MD-004 (filed June 21, 2004) (``Joint Request''). 9 Id. 10 On June 22, 2004, Commission staff advised counsel for Qwest and counsel-of-record for Cable & Wireless by telephone that the Commission would be taking this action, and neither party filed any objections with the Commission to this approach. 11 This action also does not affect the relation-back provision of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules with respect to Qwest's prior informal complaint in this matter. 12 In the event that the informal complaint is converted back to a formal complaint, it will proceed under its current file number, File No. EB-03-MD-004. 13 This informal complaint file number is the same number assigned to Qwest's original informal complaint, which Qwest timely converted
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1874A1.html
  • ) ) 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 informal complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2000A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 30, 2003, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint 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.1 Telstar replied to the Complaint on August 16, 2003.2 Therefore, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants were required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 16, 2004, or their informal complaint would be deemed to have been abandoned.3 2. Since Telstar's response, the parties have engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the complaint.4 Consequently, on February 5, 2004, APCC sought a waiver of section
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2837A1.html
  • 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 informal complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3167A1.html
  • a pending complaint proceeding.4 For reasons of administrative efficiency and to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions, the Enforcement Bureau further extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints.5 Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by October 28, 2004, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718.6 2. On November 19, 2002, the Commission ruled on certain liability issues in thirteen formal complaints that raised many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints.7 The parties to the thirteen formal complaints petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review the Commission's Liability Order,8 and on April 30, 2004, the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3394A1.html
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of the Defendants' reports (i.e., by October 29, 2004) to ensure that the formal complaints relates back to the May 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. On October 21, 2004, MCI filed a consent motion requesting waiver
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-343A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 30, 2003, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint 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.1 Telstar replied to the Complaint on August 16, 2003.2 Therefore, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants must convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 16, 2004, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. 3 2. Since the filing of the informal complaint, the parties have engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the complaint.4 Consequently, on February 5, 2004, APCC filed a Request
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3467A1.html
  • 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 informal complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3871A1.html
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the May 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. On October 26, 2003, at the parties' request, the Commission waived section 1.1718 of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3978A1.html
  • 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. Both parties agreed to participate in FCC-supervised mediation, which was initially scheduled for December 23, 2004. At the request of the parties, the mediation session was rescheduled for January 11, 2005. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Verizon is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint by December 30, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaint relates back to the June 30, 2004 filing date of the informal complaint On December 16, 2004, Verizon, with the consent of OCI, requested that the FCC
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4022A1.html
  • a pending complaint proceeding.4 For reasons of administrative efficiency and to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions, the Enforcement Bureau further extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints.5 Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by January 21, 2005, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718.6 2. On November 19, 2002, the Commission ruled on certain liability issues in thirteen formal complaints that raised many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints.7 The parties to the thirteen formal complaints petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review the Commission's Liability Order,8 and on April 30, 2004, the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-577A1.html
  • 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 informal complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-682A1.html
  • of the Commission's rules, the Complainants were required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 16, 2004, or their informal complaint would be deemed to have been abandoned.3 2. Since Telstar's response, the parties have engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the complaint.4 Consequently, on February 5, 2004, APCC sought a waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, and, in particular, requested an extension of the deadline for filing a formal complaint from February 16, 2004, to March 16, 2004.5 Because Telstar did not object to the extension, and because we determined that the extension would serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes, we granted the extension.6 3. On March
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-753A1.html
  • informed the parties, we do this for purposes of internal docket organization only, and we do not intend this action to affect the rights and obligations of any party.7 When the proceeding resumes, it will do so under its current designation, File No. EB-03-MD-018. The relation of this formal complaint to prior informal complaints, including the relation-back provision of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, will be unaffected by this purely organizational action. While the Defendants in Bankruptcy remain in bankruptcy the Complainants must file a report on the status of the bankruptcy proceedings every four months. Failure to file such a status report will result in dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute.8 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1324A1.html
  • 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 Broadview Network, Inc.'s Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-021 (filed Apr. 15,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2819A1.html
  • Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Adopted: October 26, 2005Released: October 27, 2005 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, pursuant to sections 1.3 and 1.727 of the Commission's rules,1 we grant in substantial part a motion2 filed by Complainants (collectively, ``APCC'') for waiver of the six-month filing deadline set forth in section 1.718 of the Commission's rules.3 For statute of limitations purposes, rule 1.718 allows the filing date of a formal complaint to ``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint regarding the same claim, but only if, inter alia, the formal complaint is filed within six months of the defendant's response to the informal complaint. Here, APCC's counsel attempted
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-328A1.html
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. At the parties' prior requests, the Commission previously waived section 1.718 of the Commission's rules
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-484A1.html
  • ) ) 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 informal complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-48A1.html
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. On October 26, 2003, at the parties' request, the Commission waived section 1.718 of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-4A1.html
  • above-captioned matter.2 On July 16, 2004, OCI responded to written questions posed by Commission staff,3 and on September 3, 2004, Verizon responded to OCI's informal complaint.4 Both parties agreed to participate in FCC-supervised mediation, which was initially scheduled for December 23, 2004. At the request of the parties, the mediation session was rescheduled for January 11, 2005. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 OCI is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint by January 6, 2005 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaint relates back to the July 6, 2004 filing date of the informal complaint. On December 23, 2004, OCI, with the consent of Verizon, requested that the FCC
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-668A1.html
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. At the parties' prior requests, the Commission previously waived section 1.718 of the Commission's rules
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-674A1.html
  • ``Act'').3 In a series of orders issued since the filing of these informal complaints, the Bureau has continued to extend the six-month period for converting the informal complaints into formal complaints.4 Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by April 22, 2005, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718.5 3. On April 26, 2002, thirteen IPPs converted their pending informal complaints and filed formal complaints challenging the LECs' imposition of the EUCL charge. On November 19, 2002, the Commission issued an order concluding the liability phase of the proceeding, finding that the defendant LECs violated Section 201(b) of the Act and Part 69 of the Commission's rules by improperly
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-6A1.html
  • ) ) 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 informal complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-207A1.html
  • 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 responded by denying OCI's claim,24 OCI ``converted'' its informal complaint to a formal complaint pursuant to section 1.718 of our rules.25 8. Verizon asserts three defenses to OCI's claim. First, Verizon argues that the two-year statute of limitations in section 415 of the Act bars OCI's claim, because the claim accrued upon OCI's receipt of each PICC bill, and OCI received the last such bill in April 2001, much more than two years before OCI filed the July
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-139A1.html
  • Damages, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed April 4, 2005) ("Supplemental Complaint"). APCC v. NetworkIP, LLC, Letter from Radhika Karmarkar, FCC, to Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (rel. July 8, 200[3]); APCC v. NetworkIP, LLC, Letter from Radhika Karmarkar, FCC, to Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (rel. June 13, 2003). The first motion seeks waiver of the "relation back" deadline in 47 C.F.R. S 1.718, Complainants' Motion for Partial Waiver of Section 1.718 of the Commission's Rules, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed June 3, 2003); and the second motion seeks permission to file a reply regarding Network's response to the first motion. Complainants' Conditional Motion for Leave to File Reply, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed June 17, 2003). Application at 5-6. See id. at 4, 8-9. Application
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-228A1.html
  • to pay refunds owed to Dobson for reciprocal compensation; and (3) failed to retroactively offer Dobson the ISP Order's rates in Georgia and Tennessee. On August 8, 2003, BellSouth filed a response to the Informal Complaint disputing all three claims, and declining to satisfy Dobson's demands for payment of the amounts in issue. On August 22, 2003, pursuant to rule 1.718, the Market Disputes Resolution Division of the Enforcement Bureau sent a letter to Dobson's counsel stating that Dobson had exhausted all remedies under the informal complaint process, and that the Division was closing the informal complaint file. The Informal Complaint Closure Letter explained that, under section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Dobson had the right to file a formal complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-14A1.html
  • B. Procedural History ............................................................................ ........... 5 III. DISCUSSION ....................................................................... ......................... 10 A. Network Owes Complainants $2,789,505.84 in Principal, Plus Prejudgment Interest at an Annual Rate of 11.25% .......................................... 10 B. All of Network's Grounds for Eliminating or Reducing the Damages Award Lack Merit .......................................................................... 14 1. The Enforcement Bureau did not err in granting APCC's motion for waiver of Rule 1.718 ............................................................ 14 2. APCC's March 2002 Informal Complaint was effectively served ........................................................................ 35 3. The Informal Complaints effectively named NET as a Defendant ............................................................................ .......... 46 4. The statute of limitations does not bar APCC's damages claims ............................................................................ .............. 50 5. No equitable grounds warrant barring APCC's claims .................................... 52 6. Network has failed to meet its burden of proving
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1366A1.html
  • 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: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g.,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-424A1.html
  • 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. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-425A1.html
  • 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. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-426A1.html
  • 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. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-525A1.html
  • 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 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-526A1.html
  • 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 Appendix. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-477A1.html
  • Verizon Communications, Inc, et al., Informal Complaint, IC No. 04-I0137661 (Sept. 7, 2004). We note that Complainants' formal complaint was timely filed within six months from the date of the Jan. 7, 2005 informal complaint carrier's report, so that the formal complaint filing is deemed to relate back to the filing date of the informal complaint. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.718. As a result, the limitations period under section 415(b) of the Act extends to two years before the filing of the informal complaint. 47 U.S.C. S: 415(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(e)(2)(v); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC RCD 8752, 8766, P: 24 (1992) (1992 TCPA Order). We note
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00252.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00252.txt
  • each petition objects to portions of the following conclusions from that order: In light of the foregoing, we reject BellSouth's assertion that the Commission's rules prevent a complainant who has filed a formal complaint within six months of the carrier's response to its informal complaint from recovering damages dating back two years from the filing of its informal complaint. Section 1.718 clearly provides for such ``relating back.'' Similarly, we reject complainants' argument that this ``relating back'' provision is dependent upon when the Commission has ``disposed'' of an informal complaint. Rather, the clear language of section 1.718 of the rules allows for ``relating back'' of damages only if a complainant files a formal complaint within 6 months ``from the date of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-02-293A1.html
  • 2002, the Enforcement Bureau has extended that filing period to September 9, 2002.6 Please direct all questions to Bureau staff at: EUCLQUIK@fcc.gov. This Notice is issued pursuant to section 4(i) and 4(j) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 154(j), and rules 0.111, 0.311, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311. By Suzanne Tetreault, Associate Chief, Enforcement Bureau. -FCC- _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 1.718. 2 See Enforcement Bureau Staff to Convene Meeting to Discuss Procedures for Resolving End User Common Line Informal Complaints, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 9373 (MDRD 2001); Summary of Enforcement Bureau's Multi-Party Initial Meeting Regarding Procedures for Resolving End User Common Line Informal Complaints, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 11,874 (MDRD 2001). 3 See 47 C.F.R. 1.720 - 1.736. 4
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/Welcome.html
  • 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 to engage
• 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
  • LECs and to the Fletcher Companies' billing agents. 16 The Commission has established rules and procedures that enable consumers to bring to the Commission's attention allegations of misconduct by carriers and to obtain relief from rates and practices found to be unlawful or otherwise contrary to the public interest. See 47 U.S.C. § 208; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716- 1.718. 17 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. Section 1.717 provides in pertinent part: [T]he Commission will forward informal complaints to the appropriate carrier for investigation. The carrier will, within such time as may be prescribed, advise the Commission in writing, with a copy to the complainant, of its 4 verification procedures before submitting PIC-change requests to LECs on behalf of consumers.12 3.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da991878.doc
  • Branch reviewed the file, and closed the informal complaint file based on that review. On December 22, 1997, JMJ filed a request for waiver of the Commission's rules governing the filing of formal complaints following receipt of a carrier's response to an informal complaint. JMJ requested the waiver because it had failed to file a formal complaint, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, within six months of receiving AT&T's response. As stated above, the Branch denied JMJ's waiver request. . We conclude that the Branch was correct in denying JMJ's waiver on the basis that JMJ failed to demonstrate good cause for such a waiver. "A waiver is appropriate only if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general
• 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
  • 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 and consumer
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00133.doc
  • date on which its complaint was filed with the Commission. Under the Commission's rules, any person wishing to file a section 208 complaint may file either an informal complaint or a formal complaint. If an informal complainant is not satisfied with the carrier's response, it may file a formal complaint pursuant to section 1.721 of the Commission's rules. Under section 1.718, the formal complaint is deemed to relate back to the filing of the informal complaint if the formal complaint is: 1) filed within six months from the date of the carrier's response to the informal complaint; 2) makes reference to the date of the informal complaint; and 3) is based on the same cause of action as the informal complaint.
• 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
  • 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 consumers, carriers
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000923.doc
  • REFUNDS OF END USER COMMON LINE CHARGES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. E-89-170 ORDER Adopted: April 24, 2000 Released: April 25, 2000 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 10, 1999, the Enforcement Division of the Common Carrier Bureau released an Order (Division Order) modifying the obligations established in section 1.718(a) of the Commission's rules concerning the deadline for filing formal complaints for certain independent payphone providers that had previously file informal complaints with the Commission. Counsel for some of the independent payphone service providers subject to that order subsequently filed a Petition for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Partial Reconsideration, requesting that the Commission clarify language in the Division Order
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001211.doc
  • Indiana, Sprint Corporation and Rochester Telephone Company Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. IC-098-53310 Adopted: June 1, 2000 Released: June 2, 2000 Before the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On October 18, 1999, Indiana Paging Network, Inc. (Indiana Paging) filed a petition for waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules with regard to an informal complaint that Indiana Paging had previously filed against Indiana Bell Telephone Company, an Ameritech Operating Company (Ameritech). On November 2, 1999, Indiana Paging and Ameritech filed a joint letter in which Ameritech consented to Indiana Paging's petition. Specifically, Indiana Paging has sought a waiver of section 1.718(a) which requires the filing
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001212.doc
  • Indiana, Sprint Corporation and Rochester Telephone Company Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. IC-098-53310 Adopted: June 1, 2000 Released: June 2, 2000 Before the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On October 18, 1999, Indiana Paging Network, Inc. (Indiana Paging) filed a petition for waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules with regard to an informal complaint that Indiana Paging had previously filed against GTE of Indiana (GTE). On November 2, 1999, Indiana Paging and GTE filed a joint letter in which GTE consented to Indiana Paging's petition. Specifically, Indiana Paging has sought a waiver of section 1.718(a) which requires the filing of a formal complaint within
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/209968-1.pdf
  • 30, 1998 Page 23 To avoid needlessly drawing out the complaint process, a complainant should also be required to request formal proceedings within six months of the date that the respondent filed its answer in the informal proceeding. See NPRM ¶ 154. Such a requirement would be consistent with the standard that applies to Section 208 complaints. 47 C.F.R. § 1.718.16 Finally, in determining whether to impose a filing fee, the FCC must ensure that there is parity among the defendants to the Section 255 complaint. As the Commission notes, NPRM ¶ 155, Section 8 of the Communications Act imposes a filing fee on all formal complaints against common carriers. 47 U.S.C. § 158(g). A substantial portion of Section 255 complaints
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210019-1.pdf
  • between the informal and formal complaint process imposes undue costs upon carriers, complainants and the Commission. Without finality,it will be hard to define specific obligations under Section 255 to ensure continued compliance. There are substantial costs to open ended litigation. The Commission should therefore impose limitations on complaints consistent with the principles of res judicata to foreclose endless appeals. Section 1.718 of the Commission's rules47 provides a useful model: Any complainant who is unsatisfied with the results in the informal complaint process has six months to file a formal complaint on the same access issue, or the matter is deemed closed. Finally,consistent with principles of administrative convenience,the Commission should not conduct a review of complaints involving the same issues if it
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210031-1.pdf
  • proceed with dispute resolution processes within six months of the respondent's filing of an action report is consistent with Section 1.7 18 of the Commission's Rules which limits the filing of formal complaints, subsequent to the filing of an informal complaint, to six months from the date of a common carrier's report answering the informal complaint. See 47 U.S.C. 4 1.718. 28 Although PClA supports the concept of ADR for Section 255 disputes, PCIA also realizes that there are currently no "experts" in the field of telecommunications accessibility. The ability to assess whether it is readily achievable to incorporate a given accessibility function into a particular service or piece of equipment is an extremely complex task, and thus, ADR may not
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210099-1.pdf
  • complaint.Nextel agrees that these complaints should be addressed and resolved expeditiously;30 days is more reasonable and would protectagainstthe likelihood of inaccurate or incomplete responses prompted by afive-day deadline. Carriers and manufacturers also are entitled to assurance that a proceeding has -ii- reached its conclusion. A reasonable statute of limitations, e.g. two years,should apply to all Section 255 complaints, and Section 1.718 of the Commission's rules should apply to these complaints, thus requiring complainants,unsatisfied with the results of an informal complaint,to file a formal complaint within six months of the informal complaint resolution. -iii- Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Washington, D.C. In the Matter of Implementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Access to Telecommunications Services, Telecommunications Equipment, and Customer
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/213326-1.pdf
  • the complaint process with standing related disputes. In reality, a lack of standing requirement will open the floodgates to litigation, compromise the of the Commission's Rules which limits the filing of formal complaints, subsequent to the filing of an informal complaint, to six months from the date of a common carrier's report answering the informal complaint. See 47 U.S.C. 5 1.718. 31 See e.g., TIA at 77-78; AirTouch at 7; USTA at 14; SBC at 20. 13 grounds for cooperative agreements, and mire legitimate complaints in a morass of frivolous and spurious complaints. Thus, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the importance of such prudential considerations and preserved the "autonomy of those most likely to be affected" by adjudication.32 Similarly, PCIA,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992033.doc
  • Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 0.321 of the Commissions Rules, that the formal complaint with respect to co-defendant, Michiana Metronet, Inc., IS DENIED. 33. IT IS FURTHER ORDER that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kathleen O'Brien Ham Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau The formal complaint has been filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.718 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.718. It is based on the same allegations as were set forth in an informal complaint by Poole, WB/ENF-I-95-0537, which was closed on September 7, 1995. On February 29, 1996, Poole filed the instant formal complaint with the Commission's Managing Director without a filing fee and accompanied by a request for waiver of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1999/dd990701.html
  • Service. Dkt No.: WT- 96-162. Action by the Commission. Adopted: May 18, 1999. by 1st Or./1st MO&O. (FCC No. 99-102). WTB Internet URL: [37]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/fcc99102.wp ADDENDA: The following items, released June 28, 1999, did not appear in Digest No. 122: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- BETTY J. STEARNS ET AL. V. PACIFIC BELL. Granted the joint motion for waiver of Section 1.718(a) of the Commission's rules which require the filing of a formal complaint within six months of a carrier response to an informal complaint. Action by Deputy Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division. Adopted: June 25, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-1262). CCB Internet URL: [38]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da991262.wp [39][icon bar] References 1. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/Tariffs/combined/tt070199.pdf 2. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/Part68_Actions/1999/01jul99r.txt 3. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Brdcst_Actions/ac990701.txt 4. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Brdcst_Applications/ap990701.txt 5. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Radio_Cutoffs/pnmm9121.wp
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1999/dd990708.html
  • 1 CUT-OF DATE. Internet URL: [21]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Radio_Cutoffs/ pnmm9127.wp Released: July 2, 1999. EX PARTE PRESENTATIONS AND POST-REPLY PERIOD FILINGS. Contact: Barbara Lowe, Office of the Secretary at (202) 418-0310. Internet URL: [22]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/199 9/ex990702.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- SYUFY ENTERPRISES INC., ET AL V. CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICAITONS CO OF NEW YORK, INC., ET AL. Granted joint motion requesting a waiver of Section 1.718(a) of the Commission's rules requiring filing of a formal complaint within six months of a carrier response to an informal complaint. Action by Deputy Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division. Adopted: July 2, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-1324). CCB [23][icon bar] References 1. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/ex990708.html 2. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/Tariffs/combined/tt070799.pdf 3. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Public_Notices/1999/da991339.pdf 4. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Brdcst_Actions/ac990708.txt 5. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Brdcst_Applications/ap990708.txt 6. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/da991337.wp 7. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Public_Notices/1999/da991340.wp 8.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1999/dd990720.html
  • 1999. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU UPGRADES THE UNIVERSAL LICENSING SYSTEM'S SEARCH CAPABILITIES REGARDING ASSIGNMENT OF LICENSE AND TRANSFER OF CONTROL APPLICATIONS. (DA No. 99-1421). Internet URL: [5]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/1999/da991421.wp ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- CARWEL INC., ET AL. V. GTE SERVICE CORPORATION AND ITS TELEPHONE OPERATING COMPANIES. Granted certain independent payphone providers' and GTE Service Corp.'s joint motion seeking a waiver of Section 1.718(a) of the Commnission's rules which require filing a formal complaint within six months of a carrier response to an informal complaint. Action by Deputy Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division. Adopted: July 19, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-1417). CCB TCI OF RICHARDSON, INC. Granted in part and denied in part petition for reconsideration of action on local
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1999/dd990721.html
  • June 11, 1999, pursuant to Section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934. Action by Deputy Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: July 19, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-1416). CCB Internet URL: [19]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da991416.wp AMERI-BILE PAYPHONES, ET AL. V. ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, ET AL. Granted parties' joint motion requesting a waiver of Section 1.718 of the Commission's Rules which requires the filing of a formal complaint within six months of a carrier response to an informal complaint. Action by Deputy Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: July 19, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-1415). CCB Internet URL: [20]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da991415.wp ADDENDA: The following items, released July 15, 1999, did not
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1999/dd990722.html
  • OK and Chambers, TX. Action by Chief, Policy and Rules Branch. Adopted: July 21, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-1426). WTB Internet URL: [32]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da991426.wp ADDENDA: The following items, released July 19, 1999, did not appear in Digest No. 136: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ALCO TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. BELL ATLANTIC, ET AL. Granted parties' joint motion requesting a waiver of Section 1.718 of rules.which requires the filing of a formal complaint within six months of a carrier response to an informal complaint. Action by Deputy Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch. Adopted: July 19, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-1418). CCB Internet URL: [33]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da991418.wp [34][icon bar] References 1. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/Tariffs/combined/tt072199.pdf 2. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/Part68_Actions/1999/22jul99r.txt 3. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Public_Notices/1999/da991439.pdf 4. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Public_Notices/1999/pnin9140.pdf 5. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Brdcst_Actions/ac990722.txt 6. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Brdcst_Applications/ap990722.txt 7. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/ITFS_Notices/pnmm9139.html 8.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1999/dd990903.html
  • SPEECH OF WILLIAM E. KENNARD, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BEFORE THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS RADIO SHOW SEPTEMBER 2, 1999, ORLANDO, FLORIDA (AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY). "A New Tomorrowland". Internet URL: [21]http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Kennard/spwek929.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- U.S. COASTELCOM, INC. ET AL., V. ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES CORPORATION AND THE ALLTEL TELEPHONE COMPANIES. Granted joint motion requesting a waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules. Action by Deputy Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau. by Order. (DA No. 99-1802). CCB Internet URL: [22]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da991802.wp ADDENDA: The following items, released September 1, 1999, did not appear in Digest No. 168: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ABTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL. V. SPRINT CORPORATION AND CERTAIN OF ITS TELEPONE
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1999/dd991025.html
  • Denied the Letter of Appeal and Affirmed the SLD's denial of Weld County's application for discounts for internal connection services. Dkt No.: CC-96-45, CC-97-21. Action by Deputy Bureau Chief, Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: October 22, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-2285). CCB Internet URL: [14]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992285.wp MOBILEMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. GTE SERVICE CORPORATION. Granted the joint motion for waiver of section 1.718(a) of the Commission's rules which requires filing of a formal complaint within 6 months of a carrier response to an informal complaint. Action by Deputy Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: October 22, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-2287). CCB Internet URL: [15]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992287.wp MOBILEMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. PACIFIC BELL, NEVADA BELL, SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2003/dd030113.html
  • L.L.C. Granted SM Cable Holding, L.L.C. temporary waivers of Section 11.11(a) of the Commission's Rules. Action by: Chief, Technical and Public Safety Division, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 01/10/2003 by ORDER. (DA No. 03-7). EB. Contact Jacqueline Johnson [26]DA-03-7A1.doc [27]DA-03-7A1.pdf [28]DA-03-7A1.txt QWEST CORPORATION V. CABLE & WIRELESS USA, INC., AND U.S. SOUTH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Granted Qwest Corporation's Request for waiver of Rule 1.718 and granted Extension of Time until February 14, 2003. Action by: Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division. Adopted: 01/10/2003 by ORDER. (DA No. 03-67). EB [29]DA-03-67A1.doc [30]DA-03-67A1.pdf [31]DA-03-67A1.txt APCC SERVICES, INC., DATA NET SYSTEMS, LLC, DAVEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JAROTH, INC. DBA PACIFIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICES, AND INTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORP. V. WORLDLINK, INC.. Granted the Request for Extension of Time to File Complainants'
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2003/dd030317.html
  • KDEF(AM), Albuquerque, NM for failing to maintain a main studio management and staff presence, and failing to establish monitoring procedures. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 03/12/2003 by Forfeiture Order. (DA No. 03-770). EB [38]DA-03-770A1.doc [39]DA-03-770A1.pdf [40]DA-03-770A1.txt MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES, INC. V. ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC. Granted the Consent Motion of MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. Requesting Waiver of Section 1.718 of the Commission's Rules and Further Extension of Time In Which to Convert Its Informal Complaint to a Formal Complaint and Toll the Limitations Period. Action by: Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division. Adopted: 03/14/2003 by ORDER. (DA No. 03-787). EB [41]DA-03-787A1.doc [42]DA-03-787A1.pdf [43]DA-03-787A1.txt COMMUNITY TV CORPORATION D/B/A THE AMERICABLE GROUP. Granted the Appeals of Community TV Corporation d/b/a The Americable
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2003/dd030321.html
  • [35]DOC-232406A1.pdf [36]DOC-232406A1.txt Released: 03/21/2003. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU GRANT CONSENT TO TRANSFER CONTROL OF C AND F BLOCK BROADBAND PCS LICENSES. (DA No. 03-847). WTB. Contact: Rita Cookmeyer or Yolanda Lee at (202) 418-0660 [37]DA-03-847A1.doc [38]DA-03-847A1.pdf [39]DA-03-847A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES, INC. V. ALLEGIANCE TELECOM. Granted the Consent Motion of MCI WORLDCOM Requesting Waiver of Section 1.718 and Further Extended Time In Which to Convert Its Informal Complaint to a Formal Complaint and Toll the Limitations Period until April 4, 2003. Action by: Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division. Adopted: 03/20/2003 by ORDER. (DA No. 03-836). EB [40]DA-03-836A1.doc [41]DA-03-836A1.pdf [42]DA-03-836A1.txt FM TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS FOR VARIOUS LOCATIONS. Amended FM Table of Allotments for Various Locations. Action by: Assistant
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2003/dd030404.html
  • SERVICE INFORMATION - ACCEPTED. WTB [22]DOC-232990A1.pdf [23]DOC-232990A1.txt Released: 04/04/2003. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU GRANTS CONSENT TO TRANSFER CONTOL OF F BLOCK BROADBAND PCS LICENSES. (DA No. 03-1091). WTB. Contact: Yolanda Lee (202) 418-0660 [24]DA-03-1091A1.doc [25]DA-03-1091A1.pdf [26]DA-03-1091A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES, INC. V. ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC. Granted the Consent Motion of MCI Worldcom Requesting Waiver of Section 1.718 of the Commission's Rules and Further Extension of Time in Which to Covert Its Informal Complaint to a Formal Complaint and Toll the Limitations Period. Action by: Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division. Adopted: 04/03/2003 by ORDER. (DA No. 03-1083). EB [27]DA-03-1083A1.doc [28]DA-03-1083A1.pdf [29]DA-03-1083A1.txt FM TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS, WOFFORD HEIGHTS, CA. Proposed Amendment of FM Table of Alloments for this community.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2003/dd030421.html
  • in the States of AL, FL, GA, IL, IA, KS, KY, MN, MS, MO and WI. Action by: Chief, Technical and Public Safety Division, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 04/16/2003 by ORDER. (DA No. 03-1088). EB [38]DA-03-1088A1.doc [39]DA-03-1088A1.pdf [40]DA-03-1088A1.txt MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES, INC. V. ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC.. Granted the Consent Motion of MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. Requesting Waiver of Section 1.718 of Rules and Further Extension of Time In Which to Convert Its Informal Complaint to a Formal Complaint and Toll the Limitations Period until 6/4/2003. Action by: Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division. Adopted: 04/17/2003 by ORDER. (DA No. 03-1174). EB [41]DA-03-1174A1.doc [42]DA-03-1174A1.pdf [43]DA-03-1174A1.txt SOUTH DAKOTA NETWORK, LLC, SANTEL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, SIOUX VALLEY TELEPHONE, INC., SPLITROCK TELECOM COOPERATIVE, INC., SULLY BUTTES
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2004/dd041101.html
  • of apparent liability for a forfeiture in the amount of $75,000 for marketing unauthorized equipment in violation of the Commission's rules. Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 10/27/2004 by NAL. (FCC No. 04-259). EB [17]FCC-04-259A1.doc [18]FCC-04-259A1.pdf [19]FCC-04-259A1.txt JUDITH JUDWARE V. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Granted the joint request for a further extension of the period for converting informal complaints under 47 C.F.R. 1.718, and extend the deadline for Ms. Judware to convert her informal complaint to a formal complaint. Action by: Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 10/28/2004 by ORDER. (DA No. 04-3467). EB [20]DA-04-3467A1.doc [21]DA-04-3467A1.pdf [22]DA-04-3467A1.txt MICROBAND CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND AMERICAN TELECASTING OF PORTLAND, INC. Granted the Petition and Declared that Microband forfeited the license for MDS Station WPY39.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2005/dd051027.html
  • Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau. Adopted: 10/19/2005 by ORDER. (DA No. 05-2765). CGB [42]DA-05-2765A1.doc [43]DA-05-2765A1.pdf [44]DA-05-2765A1.txt APCC SERVICES, INC., DATA NET SYSTEMS, LLC, DAVEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JAROTH, INC. D/B/A PACIFIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICES, AND INTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORP. V. NETWORK IP, LLC, AND NETWORK ENHANCED TELECOM, LLP. Granted in part and denied the Complainants' Motion for Partial Waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules. Admonished APCC's counsel to pay appropriate regard to the Commission's procedural rule. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 10/26/2005 by ORDER. (DA No. 05-2819). EB [45]DA-05-2819A1.doc [46]DA-05-2819A1.pdf [47]DA-05-2819A1.txt HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, HOUSTON, TX (FILE NO. SLD-398831). Granted the request for review and remanded the application to SLD for further consideration. (Dkt No. 02-6). Action by:
• http://www.fcc.gov/Document_Indexes/Enforcement/2003_index_EB_Order.html
  • Television Associates, Inc. temporary, 36-month waivers of Section 11.11(a) of the 04/21/2003 [1091]DA-03-1075A1.doc [1092]DA-03-1075A1.pdf [1093]DA-03-1075A1.txt DA-03-1088 MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION. Granted Mediacom Communications Corporation temporary, 12-month waivers of Section 11.11(a) of the C 04/21/2003 [1094]DA-03-1088A1.doc [1095]DA-03-1088A1.pdf [1096]DA-03-1088A1.txt DA-03-1174 MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES, INC. V. ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC.. Granted the Consent Motion of MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. Requesting Waiver of Section 1.718 04/21/2003 [1097]DA-03-1174A1.doc [1098]DA-03-1174A1.pdf [1099]DA-03-1174A1.txt FCC-03-83 CORECOMM. COMMUNICATIONS AND Z-TEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., COMPLAINANTS, V. SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC., ET AL. Granted in part a complaint brought by Core Communications, Inc. and Z-Tel Communications, Inc. agai 04/17/2003 [1100]DOC-233901A1.doc [1101]FCC-03-83A1.doc [1102]FCC-03-83A2.doc [1103]FCC-03-83A1.pdf [1104]FCC-03-83A2.pdf [1105]FCC-03-83A1.txt [1106]FCC-03-83A2.txt DA-03-1134 APCC SERVICES, INC., DATA NET SYSTEMS, LLC, DAVEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JAROTH, INC. D/B/A PACIFIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICES, AND INTERA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Document_Indexes/Enforcement/2005_index_EB_Order.html
  • Citation to Link Point Marketing, Inc., Long Beach, CA, for apparent violation of 11/02/2005 [91]DA-05-2891A1.doc [92]DA-05-2891A1.pdf [93]DA-05-2891A1.txt DA-05-2819 APCC SERVICES, INC., DATA NET SYSTEMS, LLC, DAVEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JAROTH, INC. D/B/A PACIFIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICES, AND INTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORP. V. NETWORK IP, LLC, AND NETWORK ENHANCED TELECOM, LLP. Granted in part and denied the Complainants' Motion for Partial Waiver of section 1.718 of the Commi 10/27/2005 [94]DA-05-2819A1.doc [95]DA-05-2819A1.pdf [96]DA-05-2819A1.txt FCC-05-180 MINORITY TELEVISION PROJECT, INC. Dismissed in part and denied in part the Petition for Reconsideration filed on January 24, 2005, by 10/26/2005 [97]FCC-05-180A1.doc [98]FCC-05-180A1.pdf [99]FCC-05-180A1.txt DA-05-2784 NULIFE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Issued an Official Citation to NULIFE Resource Development Corporation, Pleasant Hill, CA, for appar 10/26/2005 [100]DA-05-2784A1.doc [101]DA-05-2784A1.pdf [102]DA-05-2784A1.txt DA-05-2785 FAX MARKETING CORPORATION.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011044.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011044.html
  • period of a damages complaint, the ALJ must consider the following elements. Complaints for damages are subject to a two-year statute of limitations period starting from the date on which the formal complaint was filed. Several Complainants may have filed informal complaints about improper EUCL charges prior to their filing of formal complaints. The Liability Order states, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, that a formal complaint is deemed to relate back to the filing of an informal complaint if the formal complaint: (1) is filed within six months from the date of the carrier's response to the informal complaint; (2) makes reference to the date of the informal complaint; and, (3) is based on the same cause of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012158.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012158.html
  • and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC, North County Communications Corp., Winstar Communications, Inc., et al., and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint 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 is required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints relate back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. In light of the parties' continuing efforts to settle these matters and the pendency of other proceedings at
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012159.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012159.html
  • 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 on or before September 22, 2001, to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint. In light of the parties' continuing efforts to settle these matters and the pendency of other proceedings at the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012428.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012428.pdf
  • and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC, North County Communications Corp., Winstar Communications, Inc., et al., and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001 and October 4, 2001, the Commission granted AT&T's consent motions for additional time to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012551.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012551.pdf
  • LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, and October 18, 2001, the Commission granted AT&T's unopposed consent motions
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-104A1.html
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari),6 and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1065A1.html
  • 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 its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of CTC Telcom's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint. The Market Disputes Resolution Division (``MDRD'') granted AT&T's prior consent motions in this proceeding for
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1072A1.html
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari),6 and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1890A1.html
  • Communications Act, as amended (the ``Act'').3 For reasons of administrative efficiency and because of ongoing settlement discussions, the staff previously extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints.4 Pursuant to the most recent Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by September 9, 2002, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718.5 2. The Commission is currently adjudicating thirteen formal complaints that were recently converted from informal complaints and that raise many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints.6 The Commission is expected to rule on these liability issues by November 19, 2002, the relevant statutory deadline. We anticipate that the resolution of these legal issues will be relevant
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2070A1.html
  • 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 CTC was required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of Verizon's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 9, 2002, filing date of the informal complaint. Since the filing of the informal complaint, CTC and Verizon have engaged in negotiations to resolve
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-210A1.html
  • LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2204A1.html
  • 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 the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the November and December, 2001 and January, 2002, filing dates of the informal complaints. Since the filing of the informal complaints, the Informal Complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2340A1.html
  • 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 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. On September 9,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2511A1.html
  • Dancris ) ORDER Adopted: October 2, 2002 Released: October 3, 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, Complainants filed an informal complaint alleging that Dancris is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of the Defendant carrier's report (in this case, April 3, 2002) to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the appropriate time period of the informal complaint. 2. Since March 29, 2002, the parties have engaged in
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2552A1.html
  • 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 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. In September 2002,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-259A1.html
  • that our action today serves the public interest. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 208, section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.011 and 0.311, that section 1.718(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.718(a), IS HEREBY WAIVED, with regard to the IPP EUCL informal complaints described herein and the deadline for the conversion and filing of these informal complaints into formal complaints is hereby extended to September 9, 2002. This waiver is effective as of the release of this Order. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2758A1.html
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3013A1.html
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-301A1.html
  • 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 violates section 201(b) of the Act and section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules20 by charging Metrocall for DID facilities used to transport
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3182A1.html
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-323A1.html
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari),6 and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3305A1.html
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3342A1.html
  • 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Cooperative Communications, Inc. (``Cooperative'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3343A1.html
  • 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CGI Communications, Inc. (``CGI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 16, 2002.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3344A1.html
  • 5, 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that WorldLink, Inc. (``WorldLink'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3345A1.html
  • 5, 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Viva Telecom (``Viva'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 15, 2002.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3346A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ALLTEL Long Distance, Inc. (``ALLTEL'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3401A1.html
  • 2002 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by December 13, 2002.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3467A1.html
  • 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' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and January 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3492A1.html
  • 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 convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations. 2. Since the filing of the informal complaint, Cedar
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-34A1.html
  • after the D.C. Circuit's decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 208 and the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.717, and 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.717, and 1.718, that Vitelco respond to WorldCom's informal complaint no sooner than ninety (90) days after the D.C. Circuit's decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted, but no later than one hundred and twenty (120)
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-35A1.html
  • LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-360A1.html
  • LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), 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 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-450A1.html
  • 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-597A1.html
  • 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-707A1.html
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari),6 and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-721A1.html
  • 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-822A1.html
  • 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 to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 18, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 15, 2001, November 30,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-930A1.html
  • after it was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari),6 and adding another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12, 2001. 4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-960A1.html
  • 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 its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of CTC Telcom's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint. The Market Disputes Resolution Division (``MDRD'') granted AT&T's prior consent motions in this proceeding for
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-314A1.html
  • late 1997 through 1998 raising claims similar to those asserted by CFC.44 Because the issues raised by the IPPs in their informal complaints were similar to those being considered by the Commission in the remand proceeding, for administrative efficiency, Commission staff issued a waiver order tolling for a number of informal complaints the six-month relation back requirement contained in Section 1.718 of the Commission's rules.45 Pursuant to the waiver order, any informal complaint relating to issues raised in the CFC proceeding that had to be converted to a formal complaint pursuant to Section 1.718 after June 15, 1998, would be deemed to relate back to the filing date of the relevant informal complaint if it was filed no later than 90
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1083A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1134A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by April 14, 2003.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1174A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1187A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by April 25, 2003.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1261A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CCI Communications, Inc., (``CCI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by April 25, 2003.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-160A1.html
  • 23, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Viva Telecom (``Viva'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 15, 2002.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-170A1.html
  • 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 in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and April 2002 filing dates of the informal complaints for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1723A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 18,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1740A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 26,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1750A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 22, 2003.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1751A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CCI Communications, Inc., (``CCI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 23,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1811A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by May 30,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1900A1.html
  • of certain licensed facilities owned by Neptune, in violation of section 214 of the Act and section 1.767 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. 214; 47 C.F.R. 1.767. As of this date, Neptune and ACS have responded to the informal complaint pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717, but WCI has not. 2. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 Notesan originally had to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of the defendant carriers' reports (in this case, Notesan filed on August 30, 2002, and ACS filed on September 4, 2002) to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the filing date of the formal complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1975A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by June 20,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1976A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by June 20,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2000A1.html
  • in a pending complaint proceeding.4 For reasons of administrative efficiency and due to ongoing settlement discussions, the staff further extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints.5 Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by June 30, 2003, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718.6 2. On November 19, 2002, the Commission ruled on certain liability issues in thirteen formal complaints that raised many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints.7 The Commission's resolution of the legal issues in the Liability Order may facilitate the settlement of the pending informal complaints. Moreover, the parties to the thirteen formal complaints have petitioned the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-207A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motion for additional time to convert its
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2110A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by June 30,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2180A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by June 30, 2003.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-22A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. Since the filing of the Informal Complaint, with some assistance from Commission staff,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2377A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by July 25,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2378A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by July 25,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2617A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by August 11,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2618A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by August 11,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2736A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On December 20, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Orion Telecommunications Corp. (``Orion'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by September 3,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2880A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'' or ``Defendant'') failed to pay dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. As a result of various extensions granted by Commission staff, the Complainants are now required to convert the informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2881A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'' or ``Defendant'') failed to pay dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. As a result of various extensions granted by Commission staff, the Complainants are now required to convert the informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3022A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On December 20, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Orion Telecommunications Corp. (``Orion'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by October 3,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3222A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by October 24,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3223A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by October 24,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-351A1.html
  • of certain licensed facilities owned by Neptune, in violation of section 214 of the Act and section 1.767 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. 214; 47 C.F.R. 1.767. As of this date, Neptune and ACS have responded to the informal complaint pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717, but WCI has not. 2. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 Notesan must convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of the defendant carriers' reports (in this case, Notesan filed on August 30, 2002, and ACS filed on September 4, 2002) to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the filing date of the formal complaint will relate
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-358A1.html
  • 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 convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously granted Cedar's consent motions for additional
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3595A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On December 20, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Orion Telecommunications Corp. (``Orion'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, following a series of extensions granted by Commission staff, the Complainants were required to convert the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-371A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motion for additional time to convert its
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3849A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by December 5,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3850A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 30, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'') alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint, or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by December 5,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-406A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ATX Telecommunications Services (``ATX'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 13, 2003.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4092A1.html
  • 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 its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of KPU's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 21, 2003 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. In a letter dated July 28, 2003, Commission staff informed the parties that
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4110A1.html
  • 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 informal complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-449A1.html
  • 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 Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 Qwest must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of U.S. South's and C&W's reports to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the June 11, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted Qwest's consent motion for additional time
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-478A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-569A1.html
  • 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 convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously granted Cedar's consent motions for additional
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-607A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CCI Communications, Inc., (``CCI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 28, 2003.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-67A1.html
  • 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 Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 Qwest must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of U.S. South's and C&W's reports to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the June 11, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. Since the filing of the Informal Complaint, Qwest has sought
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-75A1.html
  • By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that ALLTEL Long Distance, Inc. (``ALLTEL'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-76A1.html
  • 13, 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that WorldLink, Inc. (``WorldLink'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-77A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CGI Communications, Inc. (``CGI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 16, 2002.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-787A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-78A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that Cooperative Communications, Inc. (``Cooperative'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by November 17, 2002.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-827A1.html
  • 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 convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Commission previously granted Cedar's consent motions for additional
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-836A1.html
  • 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 Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of limitations purposes. The Commission previously granted WorldCom's consent motions for additional time to convert its
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-861A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 29, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint alleging that CCI Communications, Inc., (``CCI'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by March 21, 2003.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-875A1.html
  • 2003 By the Deputy Division Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 28, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint (``Complaint'')alleging that Verizon Communications, Inc., (``Verizon'') is responsible for paying dial around compensation for certain types of completed calls carried by its network that originated from APCC's payphones. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaints, or such informal complaints will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants were required to convert the informal complaint into a formal complaint by March 26, 2003.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1043A1.html
  • 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 a formal complaint by February 16, 2004, or their informal complaint would be deemed to have been abandoned.4 2. Since Telstar's August 16, 2003 response, the parties have engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the informal complaint.5 On March 8, 2004, the parties participated in
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1099A1.html
  • 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 informal complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1450A1.html
  • in a pending complaint proceeding.4 For reasons of administrative efficiency and to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions, the staff further extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints.5 Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by June 30, 2004, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718.6 2. On November 19, 2002, the Commission ruled on certain liability issues in thirteen formal complaints that raised many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints.7 The parties to the thirteen formal complaints petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review the Commission's Liability Order,8 and on April 30, 2004, the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-14A1.html
  • 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 11, 2003.3 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,4 the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint or such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. In this case, the Complainants are required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by January 12,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1749A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 30, 2003, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint 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.1 Telstar replied to the Complaint on August 16, 2003.2 Therefore, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants were required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 16, 2004, or their informal complaint would be deemed to have been abandoned.3 2. Since Telstar's response, the parties have engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the complaint.4 Consequently, on February 5, 2004, APCC sought a waiver of section
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1809A1.html
  • EB-03-MD-004 (filed June 21, 2004) (``Joint Request''). 9 Id. 10 On June 22, 2004, Commission staff advised counsel for Qwest and counsel-of-record for Cable & Wireless by telephone that the Commission would be taking this action, and neither party filed any objections with the Commission to this approach. 11 This action also does not affect the relation-back provision of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules with respect to Qwest's prior informal complaint in this matter. 12 In the event that the informal complaint is converted back to a formal complaint, it will proceed under its current file number, File No. EB-03-MD-004. 13 This informal complaint file number is the same number assigned to Qwest's original informal complaint, which Qwest timely converted
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1874A1.html
  • ) ) 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 informal complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2000A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 30, 2003, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint 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.1 Telstar replied to the Complaint on August 16, 2003.2 Therefore, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants were required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 16, 2004, or their informal complaint would be deemed to have been abandoned.3 2. Since Telstar's response, the parties have engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the complaint.4 Consequently, on February 5, 2004, APCC sought a waiver of section
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2837A1.html
  • 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 informal complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3167A1.html
  • a pending complaint proceeding.4 For reasons of administrative efficiency and to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions, the Enforcement Bureau further extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints.5 Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by October 28, 2004, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718.6 2. On November 19, 2002, the Commission ruled on certain liability issues in thirteen formal complaints that raised many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints.7 The parties to the thirteen formal complaints petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review the Commission's Liability Order,8 and on April 30, 2004, the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3394A1.html
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of the Defendants' reports (i.e., by October 29, 2004) to ensure that the formal complaints relates back to the May 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. On October 21, 2004, MCI filed a consent motion requesting waiver
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-343A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 30, 2003, APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') filed an informal complaint 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.1 Telstar replied to the Complaint on August 16, 2003.2 Therefore, pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Complainants must convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 16, 2004, or their informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned. 3 2. Since the filing of the informal complaint, the parties have engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the complaint.4 Consequently, on February 5, 2004, APCC filed a Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3467A1.html
  • 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 informal complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3871A1.html
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the May 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. On October 26, 2003, at the parties' request, the Commission waived section 1.1718 of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3978A1.html
  • 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. Both parties agreed to participate in FCC-supervised mediation, which was initially scheduled for December 23, 2004. At the request of the parties, the mediation session was rescheduled for January 11, 2005. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Verizon is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint by December 30, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaint relates back to the June 30, 2004 filing date of the informal complaint On December 16, 2004, Verizon, with the consent of OCI, requested that the FCC
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4022A1.html
  • a pending complaint proceeding.4 For reasons of administrative efficiency and to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions, the Enforcement Bureau further extended the deadline for conversion of these informal complaints into formal complaints.5 Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by January 21, 2005, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718.6 2. On November 19, 2002, the Commission ruled on certain liability issues in thirteen formal complaints that raised many issues similar to those raised in the pending informal complaints.7 The parties to the thirteen formal complaints petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review the Commission's Liability Order,8 and on April 30, 2004, the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-577A1.html
  • 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 informal complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-682A1.html
  • of the Commission's rules, the Complainants were required to convert their informal complaint into a formal complaint by February 16, 2004, or their informal complaint would be deemed to have been abandoned.3 2. Since Telstar's response, the parties have engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the complaint.4 Consequently, on February 5, 2004, APCC sought a waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, and, in particular, requested an extension of the deadline for filing a formal complaint from February 16, 2004, to March 16, 2004.5 Because Telstar did not object to the extension, and because we determined that the extension would serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes, we granted the extension.6 3. On March
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-753A1.html
  • informed the parties, we do this for purposes of internal docket organization only, and we do not intend this action to affect the rights and obligations of any party.7 When the proceeding resumes, it will do so under its current designation, File No. EB-03-MD-018. The relation of this formal complaint to prior informal complaints, including the relation-back provision of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, will be unaffected by this purely organizational action. While the Defendants in Bankruptcy remain in bankruptcy the Complainants must file a report on the status of the bankruptcy proceedings every four months. Failure to file such a status report will result in dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute.8 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1324A1.html
  • 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 Broadview Network, Inc.'s Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-021 (filed Apr. 15,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2819A1.html
  • Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Adopted: October 26, 2005Released: October 27, 2005 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, pursuant to sections 1.3 and 1.727 of the Commission's rules,1 we grant in substantial part a motion2 filed by Complainants (collectively, ``APCC'') for waiver of the six-month filing deadline set forth in section 1.718 of the Commission's rules.3 For statute of limitations purposes, rule 1.718 allows the filing date of a formal complaint to ``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint regarding the same claim, but only if, inter alia, the formal complaint is filed within six months of the defendant's response to the informal complaint. Here, APCC's counsel attempted
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-328A1.html
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. At the parties' prior requests, the Commission previously waived section 1.718 of the Commission's rules
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-484A1.html
  • ) ) 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 informal complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-48A1.html
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. On October 26, 2003, at the parties' request, the Commission waived section 1.718 of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-4A1.html
  • above-captioned matter.2 On July 16, 2004, OCI responded to written questions posed by Commission staff,3 and on September 3, 2004, Verizon responded to OCI's informal complaint.4 Both parties agreed to participate in FCC-supervised mediation, which was initially scheduled for December 23, 2004. At the request of the parties, the mediation session was rescheduled for January 11, 2005. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 OCI is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint by January 6, 2005 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaint relates back to the July 6, 2004 filing date of the informal complaint. On December 23, 2004, OCI, with the consent of Verizon, requested that the FCC
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-668A1.html
  • 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 informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints. At the parties' prior requests, the Commission previously waived section 1.718 of the Commission's rules
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-674A1.html
  • ``Act'').3 In a series of orders issued since the filing of these informal complaints, the Bureau has continued to extend the six-month period for converting the informal complaints into formal complaints.4 Pursuant to the most recent Enforcement Bureau order, informal complaints were required to be converted by April 22, 2005, to benefit from the relation back rule outlined in section 1.718.5 3. On April 26, 2002, thirteen IPPs converted their pending informal complaints and filed formal complaints challenging the LECs' imposition of the EUCL charge. On November 19, 2002, the Commission issued an order concluding the liability phase of the proceeding, finding that the defendant LECs violated Section 201(b) of the Act and Part 69 of the Commission's rules by improperly
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-6A1.html
  • ) ) 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 informal complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-207A1.html
  • 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 responded by denying OCI's claim,24 OCI ``converted'' its informal complaint to a formal complaint pursuant to section 1.718 of our rules.25 8. Verizon asserts three defenses to OCI's claim. First, Verizon argues that the two-year statute of limitations in section 415 of the Act bars OCI's claim, because the claim accrued upon OCI's receipt of each PICC bill, and OCI received the last such bill in April 2001, much more than two years before OCI filed the July
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-139A1.html
  • Damages, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed April 4, 2005) ("Supplemental Complaint"). APCC v. NetworkIP, LLC, Letter from Radhika Karmarkar, FCC, to Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (rel. July 8, 200[3]); APCC v. NetworkIP, LLC, Letter from Radhika Karmarkar, FCC, to Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (rel. June 13, 2003). The first motion seeks waiver of the "relation back" deadline in 47 C.F.R. S 1.718, Complainants' Motion for Partial Waiver of Section 1.718 of the Commission's Rules, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed June 3, 2003); and the second motion seeks permission to file a reply regarding Network's response to the first motion. Complainants' Conditional Motion for Leave to File Reply, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed June 17, 2003). Application at 5-6. See id. at 4, 8-9. Application
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-228A1.html
  • to pay refunds owed to Dobson for reciprocal compensation; and (3) failed to retroactively offer Dobson the ISP Order's rates in Georgia and Tennessee. On August 8, 2003, BellSouth filed a response to the Informal Complaint disputing all three claims, and declining to satisfy Dobson's demands for payment of the amounts in issue. On August 22, 2003, pursuant to rule 1.718, the Market Disputes Resolution Division of the Enforcement Bureau sent a letter to Dobson's counsel stating that Dobson had exhausted all remedies under the informal complaint process, and that the Division was closing the informal complaint file. The Informal Complaint Closure Letter explained that, under section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Dobson had the right to file a formal complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-14A1.html
  • B. Procedural History ............................................................................ ........... 5 III. DISCUSSION ....................................................................... ......................... 10 A. Network Owes Complainants $2,789,505.84 in Principal, Plus Prejudgment Interest at an Annual Rate of 11.25% .......................................... 10 B. All of Network's Grounds for Eliminating or Reducing the Damages Award Lack Merit .......................................................................... 14 1. The Enforcement Bureau did not err in granting APCC's motion for waiver of Rule 1.718 ............................................................ 14 2. APCC's March 2002 Informal Complaint was effectively served ........................................................................ 35 3. The Informal Complaints effectively named NET as a Defendant ............................................................................ .......... 46 4. The statute of limitations does not bar APCC's damages claims ............................................................................ .............. 50 5. No equitable grounds warrant barring APCC's claims .................................... 52 6. Network has failed to meet its burden of proving
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1366A1.html
  • 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: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g.,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-424A1.html
  • 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. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-425A1.html
  • 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. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-426A1.html
  • 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. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-525A1.html
  • 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 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-526A1.html
  • 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 Appendix. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-477A1.html
  • Verizon Communications, Inc, et al., Informal Complaint, IC No. 04-I0137661 (Sept. 7, 2004). We note that Complainants' formal complaint was timely filed within six months from the date of the Jan. 7, 2005 informal complaint carrier's report, so that the formal complaint filing is deemed to relate back to the filing date of the informal complaint. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.718. As a result, the limitations period under section 415(b) of the Act extends to two years before the filing of the informal complaint. 47 U.S.C. S: 415(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(e)(2)(v); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC RCD 8752, 8766, P: 24 (1992) (1992 TCPA Order). We note
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00252.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00252.txt
  • each petition objects to portions of the following conclusions from that order: In light of the foregoing, we reject BellSouth's assertion that the Commission's rules prevent a complainant who has filed a formal complaint within six months of the carrier's response to its informal complaint from recovering damages dating back two years from the filing of its informal complaint. Section 1.718 clearly provides for such ``relating back.'' Similarly, we reject complainants' argument that this ``relating back'' provision is dependent upon when the Commission has ``disposed'' of an informal complaint. Rather, the clear language of section 1.718 of the rules allows for ``relating back'' of damages only if a complainant files a formal complaint within 6 months ``from the date of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-02-293A1.html
  • 2002, the Enforcement Bureau has extended that filing period to September 9, 2002.6 Please direct all questions to Bureau staff at: EUCLQUIK@fcc.gov. This Notice is issued pursuant to section 4(i) and 4(j) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 154(j), and rules 0.111, 0.311, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311. By Suzanne Tetreault, Associate Chief, Enforcement Bureau. -FCC- _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 1.718. 2 See Enforcement Bureau Staff to Convene Meeting to Discuss Procedures for Resolving End User Common Line Informal Complaints, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 9373 (MDRD 2001); Summary of Enforcement Bureau's Multi-Party Initial Meeting Regarding Procedures for Resolving End User Common Line Informal Complaints, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 11,874 (MDRD 2001). 3 See 47 C.F.R. 1.720 - 1.736. 4
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/Welcome.html
  • 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 to engage
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files06/CREPOR06.PDF
  • $20,186,151 0.026.4 4.213.9 55.5 $373,688 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.6 93.7 $19,308 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 99.9 174,070,482 0.014.311.814.1 59.9 United Kingdom $283,227,135 1.435.2 0.220.8 42.4 $35,778,792 0.020.9 0.021.7 57.4 $68,760,392 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 4,530,798,066 0.518.2 0.933.1 47.3 Western Europe $946,271,319 0.530.3 1.118.1 50.0 $103,381,629 0.021.5 0.025.7 52.8 $181,595,458 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 13,760,487,165 0.221.9 2.129.5 46.3 Algeria $7,190,918 0.024.9 1.718.9 54.4 $561,771 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $27,977 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 76,845,009 0.016.5 1.617.8 64.1 Angola $6,702,223 0.023.6 6.1 7.9 62.4 $142,872 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $22,706 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 26,262,698 0.014.910.016.6 58.5 Benin $2,187,003 0.0 6.1 7.243.2 43.5 $92,925 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 95.2 $128 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 27,092,126 0.0 2.1 8.648.6 40.7 Botswana $5,664,507 0.876.5 0.0