FCC Web Documents citing 1.720

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2079A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2079A1.pdf
  • * * REDACTED * * * ]. In turn, the record does not demonstrate that federal case law supports Network's request for a stay absent a pledge of security for the full judgment amount. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Network's Motion to Stay the Damages Order IS DENIED, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Network's Motion for Leave to File a Reply IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.pdf
  • at 10-11, � 34. Salsgiver Telecom also asserted a request for damages, citing �� 206-209 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 206-209. Complaint at 8-9, � 29. It did not, however, offer proof of any alleged damages, nor did it comply with the Commission's rules for bringing complaints for damages under sections 206-208 of the Act. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720 - 1.736. As a result of these deficiencies, we are unable to assess the merits of Salsgiver Telecom's request for damages and therefore deny it. Complaint at 7-9, �� 24-30. See Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C. v. North Pittsburgh Tel. Co., File No. EB-05-MD-014 (Complaint filed July 8, 2005); DQE Communications Network Servs. v. North Pittsburgh Tel. Co., File No. EB-05-MD-027
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-667A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-667A1.pdf
  • amended. As part of this review, the Commission sought recommendations from the public concerning whether these rules and procedures should be modified or eliminated. II. SCOPE OF REVIEW The Commission identified the following rule parts containing regulations administered by the Enforcement Bureau for review and comment in the Public Notice: Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 and 1.720 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of formal complaints against common carriers. Sections 1.80 and 1.89 of the Commission's rules address forfeiture proceedings and penalties and Notice of Violations proceedings. Increased competition in the marketplace does not diminish the need for these rules, and thus we do not find that they are no longer necessary in the public
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1205A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1205A1.pdf
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.pdf
  • 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., Application
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2472A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2472A1.pdf
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that NewSouth's Complaint against BellSouth in the above-captioned proceeding IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau As a result of transactions consummated in 2004,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.pdf
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint of Verizon, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed July 25,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.pdf
  • 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 Sess.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.pdf
  • 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 Sess.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.pdf
  • 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, 97th
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.pdf
  • 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. 51
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.pdf
  • 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. 2d
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.pdf
  • is dispositive of this issue, we also note that DeMoss has failed to submit documentation in support of this claim. DeMoss references selected portions of Sprint's FCC Tariff No. 1, section 2.3.1(A), and selected portions of the Industry Guidelines for Toll-Free Number Administration, but he fails to present these documents as a part of the record, in accordance with sections 1.720(f) and (h), and 1.721(a)(11) of the Commission's rules. D. Remedies 1. Whether Equity Requires the Return of the AMERICA Toll-Free Numbers to DeMoss 31. In seeking equitable relief, DeMoss asks that we order Sprint to reinstate the AMERICA toll-free numbers to him. The relief that DeMoss seeks, however, obviously cannot be granted without causing harm to the current user of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.pdf
  • Bureau recommends that the Commission seek comment on whether it should require (as it already does in the voice context) that any service provider accept a cancellation request from a customer's authorized agent. Conclusion and REcommendationS In sum, for all of the foregoing reasons, and pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 222, and 303(r) of the Act, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, we recommend that the Commission (i) DENY Complainants' claim (i.e., Count I) that Verizon's customer retention marketing practices violate section 222(b) of the Act; and (ii) DENY Complainants' claim (i.e., Count II) that Verizon's customer retention marketing practices violate section 222(a) of the Act. Complainants' claim (i.e., Count III) that Verizon's customer retention marketing practices violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf
  • MAP's section 415 claims are thus not supported by either the statutory language or the purpose of the statutory provision. We therefore deny Counts XXII and XXIII of MAP's Complaint. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that SBC Communications, Inc., Ameritech Corporation, Pacific Bell Communications, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. are hereby DISMISSED as parties, without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1086A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1086A1.pdf
  • satisfied that dismissing the Complaint with prejudice will serve the public interest by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that CassTel's Motion to Dismiss IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alex Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 1
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1508A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1508A1.pdf
  • will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to defendants Matrix Management, Inc. and ZCom Networks, Inc., and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED as to defendants Matrix Management,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1580A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1580A1.pdf
  • with prejudice. We are satisfied that dismissing the Petition with prejudice will serve the public interest by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 1.106, 1.720 - 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.106, 1.720 - 1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that MAP Mobile Communications, Inc.'s Notice of Settlement and Request for Dismissal of Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED and its Petition for Partial Reconsideration or Clarification is hereby DISMISSED
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1803A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1803A1.pdf
  • CNS with prejudice will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of the dispute between APCC and CNS and by eliminating the need for further litigation as between these two parties. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion to Dismiss CCI Network Services, Inc. is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to defendant CCI Network Services, Inc., and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED as to defendant CCI
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1983A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1983A1.pdf
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes, and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 1 Formal Complaint, File No. EB-09-MD-002 (filed
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.pdf
  • Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 8, 2009, the above-named complainant (``APCC Services'') filed with this Commission a formal complaint against Dollar Phone Corp., RespOrgUSA, Inc., Dollar Phone Access, Inc., Dollar Phone Enterprise, Inc., Dollar Phone Services, Inc., and Global Switching, Inc., (``Defendants'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and section 1.720 et seq. of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants violated sections 201(b) and 276(b) of the Act and sections 64.1300 and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules by failing to pay dial-around compensation to payphone service providers represented by APCC Services. On July 16, 2009, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint and in which they denied
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.pdf
  • attachment, to Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, from Kathy Baker and Keith Liljestrand, representatives of Pulsar, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 15, 2009) (``Pulsar Memorandum''). Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 22, 2009) (``January 22 Letter''). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720, 1.724, 1.728. January 22 Letter at 2. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 27, 2009) (``January 27 Letter''). January 27 Letter at 3. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2191A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2191A1.pdf
  • matter will serve the public interest by eliminating the need for the expenditure of further time and resources by the Commission, and by affording the parties certainty about the status of this proceeding. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to defendants Network Management, Inc. and USP Communications, Inc., and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-755A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-755A1.pdf
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes, and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the July 2008 and March 2009 Motions ARE GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief, Market Disputes
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.pdf
  • the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Request for Resolution on the Pleadings IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 209, and sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Formal Complaint IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein, and is otherwise denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 209 of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.pdf
  • when Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2614 (1993); Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. AT&T Communications, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 8130 (1989), aff'd sub nom. Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. FCC, 915 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 920 (1991). See generally 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.735. messages on his residential phone line. Defendants' Response to Staff's Request at 5. Verizon further states that it takes Verizon's systems longer to update non-marketing, non-sales lists as opposed to messages used as a part of a marketing or sales campaign that must be updated in accordance with federal and state requirements. Id. 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3) (emphasis added). See
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-967A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-967A1.pdf
  • complaints. For further information, contact the Enforcement Bureau at 202-418-7330. Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, FCC 11-16, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1594 (2011) (``Part 1 Order''). Id. at � � 10, 15. Id. at � 10. Id. at � 15. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Note that these new rules do not affect existing section 208 formal complaints or existing section 224 pole attachment complaints. They also do not concern carrier-to-carrier informal complaints. See Id. at Appendix A, (listing new rule �1.49(f)(1)(i) that requires ``[f]ormal complaint proceedings under Section 208 . . . '' to be filed electronically and excluding informal
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.pdf
  • in the hearing aid compatibility report to be prepared by Commission staff. See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comments on Topics to be Addressed in Hearing Aid Compatibility Report, WT Docket No. 06-203, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 13136 (2006). Formal complaints are filed pursuant to Section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 208, and are governed by Sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. Informal complaints are governed by Sections 1.716-1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.716-1.719. See 47 U.S.C. � 503. See 47 U.S.C. � 312(a). See 47 U.S.C. � 312(b). See Skype July 24 Ex Parte at 1-2 (requesting rule modifications so that complainants would be required to make only a prima
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.pdf
  • outstanding issues, we render moot APCC's otherwise compelling objection that the Petition improperly seeks interlocutory relief. See Opposition to Defendants' Petition for Reconsideration, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed Dec. 9, 2005) (``Opposition to Recon.'') at 6-7 (citing 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(a)(1) (stating that ``[p]etitions for reconsideration of ... interlocutory actions will not be entertained'')). 47 C.F.R. �� 1.716-1.718. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. 47 U.S.C. � 415(b). See, e.g., Operator Communications, Inc. v. Contel of the South, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19783, 19792 at � 23 (2005). 47 C.F.R. � 1.718 (stating, in pertinent part, that a formal complaint ``will be deemed to relate back to the filing date of the informal complaint: Provided, That the formal complaint: (a)
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.pdf
  • 1, 11-12. Farmers' Opening Brief at 2, 14. 47 C.F.R. � 1.725 (``Cross-complaints seeking any relief within the jurisdiction of the Commission against any carrier that is a party (complainant or defendant) to that proceeding are expressly prohibited. Any claim that might otherwise meet the requirements of a cross-complaint may be filed as a separate complaint in accordance with �� 1.720 through 1.736. For purposes of this subpart, the term `cross-complaint' shall include counterclaims.''). See U.S. Telepacific Corp. v. Tel-America of Salt Lake City, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24555-56, � 8 (2004) (citing ``long-standing Commission precedent'' holding that the Commission does not act as a collection agent for carriers with respect to unpaid tariffed charges, and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.pdf
  • necessary to ensure that PSPs ``receive[] full compensation for this period.'' Nor does OCI identify any ``facts described by Verizon'' which would cause us to make an exception here. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, 276, and sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1301 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, 64.1301, that the above-captioned formal complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, 276, and sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1301 of the Commission's
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.pdf
  • compensation shall accrue interest at the rate of 11.25% per year. Defendants' asserted misunderstanding of the law cannot set aside a Commission rule in these circumstances. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, that APCC Services, Inc.'s claims against Intelligent Switching and Software, LLC under section 201(b) of the Act are GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, 276, and 416 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. ��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.pdf
  • grant Complainants' claim under section 222(b) of the Act (i.e., Count I), and award the requested injunctive relief. Specifically, we hereby order Verizon to immediately cease and desist from engaging in the customer retention marketing activities described above. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 222, and 303(r) of the Act, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, that the Enforcement Bureau's April 11, 2008, Recommended Decision in File No. EB-08-MD-002 IS REJECTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 222, and 303(r) of the Act, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, that Count I of the Complaint is GRANTED, and that Counts II and III are DISMISSED without
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-167A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-167A1.pdf
  • post changes in rates, terms and conditions before those changes are actually implemented, we deny CCMI's claims that the timing of AT&T's postings violates rule 42.10 and section 201(b). ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and sections 1.720-1.736, and 42.10 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, 42.10, that the formal complaint filed by the Center for Communications Management Information, Econobill Corporation, and On Line Marketing Inc. is DENIED, and this proceeding is hereby TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Formal Complaint of Center for Communications Management Information, Econobill Corporation, and On Line Marketing Inc.,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.pdf
  • 24 FCC Rcd at 3808, � 5, n.12. North County makes the assertion in a single, unsupported footnote. See North County AFR at 8 n.30. MetroPCS did not make the assertion until its Response. See Metro Response at 4-5. Indeed, MetroPCS's Application refers to the traffic at issue as intrastate several times. See MetroPCS AFR at ii, 1, 17. Rule 1.720(c) provides: ``Facts must be supported by relevant documentation or affidavit.'' 47 C.F.R.� 1.720(c). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.721(a)(5), 1.724(g), 1.726(e), 1.732(b) (all requiring that factual assertions in formal complaint proceedings be supported by declarations and/or documents). Given the parties' failure to preserve or support their claim that there is any interstate traffic at issue here, we have no occasion in
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-74A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-74A1.pdf
  • simply recounts the events as to how the number was purportedly released. Without the opportunity to question witnesses to the event, Staton argues that the Bureau could not have decided whether MCI acted willfully or negligently. 9. Staton is incorrect that the testimony of live witnesses is necessary to resolve formal complaints such as Staton's. As set forth in section 1.720 of our rules, formal complaint proceedings, such as this one, ``are generally resolved on a written record consisting of a complaint, answer, and joint statement of stipulated facts, disputed facts and key legal issues, along with all associated affidavits, exhibits and other attachments.'' In American Message Centers v. FCC, the court, in endorsing the Commission's procedures governing formal complaints, stated:
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.pdf
  • entitled. We therefore need not, and do not, reach the claims stated in the remaining counts of the Complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss these counts without prejudice. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 203, and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 201, 203, and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, that Counts III and IV of the Complaint are hereby GRANTED as to liability; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.pdf
  • the existence of the Collection Action Orders, such orders were not addressed in either the Bureau or Commission decisions in that proceeding. We note that the Commission's rules require parties to formal complaint proceedings, among other things, to distinguish opposing legal authority and to ensure that relevant legal authorities are current and updated as necessary. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 1.720(e), (g). (continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-5 - � � � � \ � � 0 0
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.pdf
  • Complaint, we need not and do not reach the merits of Count II of the Complaint, and we dismiss Count II of the Complaint without prejudice. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, that Count I of the Complaint is GRANTED to the extent described herein, and Count II of the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 47 U.S.C. � 208. See Formal Complaint of AT&T Texas, File No. EB-11-MD-008 (filed Sept. 9, 2011) (Complaint). See also Proposed Findings
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1502A1.txt
  • facts as are necessary to give a full understanding of the matter, including relevant legal and documentary support.'' See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.721(b). See also Hi-Rim Communications, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation, File No. E-96-18, 13 FCC Rcd 1982 (1997) (Hi-Rim). The Commission's rules also provide that facts must be supported by affidavits or other relevant documentation. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720(c). Complaint at �� 3 & 33. Id. at � 34; Affidavit of James Cox at � 14; Glo Gem's Brief at 7. Glo Gem Productions, Inc. v. Metronet-Telecom, Inc., File No. E-98-30, Answer and Affirmative Defenses (filed Apr. 24, 1998) (Answer), at 3, � 12. Answer at 5, � 25; Glo Gem Productions, Inc. v. Metronet-Telecom, Inc., File No. E-98-30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2118A1.txt
  • South Before the Public Service Commission of South Carolina, CC Docket Nos. 97-163, 97-164, 97-165, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 1755, 1758- 59, paras. 5, 33 (1997), recons. denied, 14 FCC Rcd 7024 (1999). 13 Any filings made by Cox must meet the requirements of the Commission's rules governing the filing of formal complaints. See 47 CFR � 1.720 et seq. 14 Reciprocal Compensation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 3703-6, paras. 24 and 27. Federal Communications Commission DA 00-2118 4 III.CONCLUSION 7.For the foregoing reasons, we grant Cox's Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction over its complaint against GTE and invite Cox to file for resolution of its dispute with GTE under 47 C.F.R. � 1.720 et seq. IV.ORDERING
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-418A1.txt
  • before the Commission. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.17. See 47 U.S.C. � 208; see also Directel, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7554, 7560 (1996); Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures To Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997). 47 C.F.R. � 1.720. We note that the Commission has determined to forbear from enforcing the unblocked access provisions of TOCSIA against CMRS aggregators and presubscribed carriers like WorldCom. See Forbearance From Applying Provisions of the Communications Act to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 16857, 16894 (1998) (``Forbearance Order''). Because we deny the complaint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-419A1.txt
  • 3, 1999 (``1999 Fishel Letter''), recon. pending. See 47 U.S.C. � 208; see also Directel, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7554, 7560 (1996); Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures To Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.720(c). See General Plumbing Corp. v. New York Telephone Co. et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC 11799, 11809 n. 63 (1996). Id. See also Procedures to be Followed When Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1809 (1988). Section 301 bars radio transmissions that are not ``under and in accordance with a license''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-864A1.txt
  • 13, 1997 (citations omitted) (Schroeder Letter). At the suggestion of the Common Carrier Bureau, counsel for the parties consented to a bifurcated approach: The conduit rate issues would proceed according to the Commission's pole attachment complaint procedures, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401, et seq., and the common carrier issues would proceed according to the Commission's formal complaint procedures, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720, et seq. The Common Carrier Bureau thus dismissed the common carrier-related claims in the 1996 complaint without prejudice, and invited the complainants to refile the common carrier claims pursuant to section 208 of the Act. Schroeder Letter. 47 U.S.C. � 254(k). 47 C.F.R. � 64.901. 47 C.F.R. � 32.27. 47 U.S.C. � 541(b). 47 U.S.C. �� 202(a), 224(g). Complaint at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-558A1.txt
  • U S West Wireless denied that it had violated the Communications Act or the Commission's rules. It also contended that the complaint should be dismissed because, among other reasons, the dispute alleged therein was subject to mandatory arbitration that had been ordered by the Colorado court. 3 On November 28, 2000, Commission staff directed Voice Networks, in accordance with section 1.720(g) of the Commission's rules, to update the record in this proceeding by submitting a description of the current status of the related court litigation between the parties. Commission staff directed Voice Networks to submit this update by December 18, 2000. When the anticipated submission by Voice Networks was not received on this date, Commission staff contacted Voice Networks' attorney of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1470A1.txt
  • with the requirements set forth in section 1.722 of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS GRANTED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 208. See 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1300-64.1320. These rules were promulgated to implement section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 276. APCC Services, Inc.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1645A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1645A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1645A1.txt
  • failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 208. See 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1300-64.1320. The Commission promulgated these rules to implement section 276 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1646A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1646A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1646A1.txt
  • failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 208. See 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1300-64.1320. The Commission promulgated these rules to implement section 276 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1647A1.txt
  • failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 208. See 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1300-64.1320. The Commission promulgated these rules to implement section 276 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2503A1.txt
  • by eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 208. See 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1300-64.1320. These rules were promulgated to implement section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 276. See
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2925A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2925A2.txt
  • to address FCC formal and informal complaints. Finally, SBC has established a 272 Compliance Team, including representatives from each SBC organization, group, business unit, etc. affected, or potentially affected, by the Section 272 Requirements, to address any Section 272 related issues and complaints. Obtained from the SBC BOCs a list of all FCC formal complaints, as defined in 47 CFR 1.720; FCC informal complaints, as defined in 47 CFR 1.716; and any written complaints made to a state regulatory commission from competitors filed during the first nine months of the Engagement Period involving alleged noncompliance with the Section 272 Requirements, including complaints submitted by competitors related to the provision or procurement of goods, services, facilities, and information, or in connection with
• 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
  • -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. �� 1.720 - 1.736. In this regard, complainants must attach a copy of the underlying informal complaint to the formal complaint being filed. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.718. See also Informal Complaints Filed By Independent Payphone Service Providers Against Various Local Exchange Carriers Seeking Refunds of End User Common Line Charges, File No. 89-170, DA 99-1858,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3222A1.txt
  • and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3223A1.txt
  • and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3289A1.txt
  • which it assumes responsibility under section 252(e)(5). Similarly, these proceedings before the Commission and any judicial review thereof shall be the exclusive remedies available to the parties. conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we grant MCImetro's petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction over its dispute with Verizon and invite MCImetro to file for resolution of this dispute under 47 C.F.R. � 1.720 et seq. ordering clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 252, and sections 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b), the petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by MCImetro on September 6, 2002, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3414A1.txt
  • File No. EB-02-MD-035 ORDER Adopted: December 12, 2002 Released: December 13, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 5, 2002, US LEC of Virginia, L.L.C. (``US LEC'') filed with this Commission a formal complaint against Verizon Virginia, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Verizon has unlawfully failed to fulfill its obligations under the parties' interconnection agreement to make payments relating to the exchange of certain traffic. Verizon filed its answer denying these obligations on September 25, 2002. On December 4, 2002, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Convert Case requesting that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3442A1.txt
  • what these documents purport to be under the Commission's rules. Construing these documents most liberally in favor of DDA, we will assume that they were intended to be either applications for review of a Commission staff decision to close an informal complaint proceeding initiated by DDA pursuant to sections 1.711-1.718 of the Commission's rules, or formal complaints pursuant to sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules. In either situation, for the reasons described below, DDA's filings are patently meritless, almost to the point of being frivolous. In 2001, DDA filed with the Commission an informal complaint against Verizon and SBC concerning essentially the same circumstances as those described in the documents filed by DDA in this matter. Both SBC and Verizon responded
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3547A1.txt
  • supplemental complaint for damages. If Complainants decide to request such relief, they must explain the appropriateness of a particular interest rate, based upon past Commission precedent. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Complainants' motion for default judgment IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3584A1.txt
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the above-captioned complaint filed by EarthLink, Inc. IS GRANTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-639A1.txt
  • the Commission after it assumes responsibility over a proceeding and any judicial review of such findings shall be the exclusive remedies available to the parties. conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we grant KMC's Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction over its complaint against Verizon and invite KMC to file for resolution of its dispute with Verizon under 47 C.F.R. � 1.720 et seq. ordering clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. � 252 and 47 C.F.R. �51.801(b), the Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by KMC Telecom of Virginia, Inc., KMC Telecom IV of Virginia, Inc., and KMC Telecom V
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-97A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-97A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-97A1.txt
  • after it assumes responsibility over a proceeding and any judicial review of such findings shall be the exclusive remedies available to the parties. conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we grant US LEC's Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction over its complaint against Verizon and invite US LEC to file for resolution of its dispute with Verizon under 47 C.F.R. � 1.720 et seq. ordering clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. � 252 and 47 C.F.R. �51.801(b), the Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by US LEC of Virginia on November 6, 2001, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dorothy T.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1050A1.txt
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the parties' joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the above-captioned complaint filed IS GRANTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1061A1.txt
  • provision of non-compliant Terminal Equipment for connection to the PSTN, or to wireline carrier-owned facilities used to provide private line services, may provide such information to the FCC's Enforcement Bureau. In addition, the Enforcement Bureau considers formal complaints against common carriers for violations of Part 68 rules pursuant to the general rules for such complaints found in 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau considers informal consumer complaints regarding Part 68's hearing aid compatibility and volume control rules pursuant to 47 C.F.R. �� 68.415-68.420. Summary of Responsibilities Wireline carriers must allow all Terminal Equipment to be connected directly to the PSTN and their wireline facilities providing private line services, provided the TE have Part 68 approval. To obtain
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-131A1.txt
  • section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 208 permits any person to lodge a complaint with the Commission against a common carrier alleging a violation of the Communications Act. Subpart E establishes the rules for the submission and treatment of two categories of complaints against common carriers. These are ``Formal Complaints,'' which are governed by sections 1.720 - 1.736, and ``Informal Complaints,'' which are governed by sections 1.716-1.719. The Informal Complaint rules emphasize ease of filing by consumers, and voluntary cooperative efforts by consumers and affected companies to resolve their differences informally. The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau's analysis of Part 1, Subpart E will be limited to ``Informal Complaints'' governed by sections 1.716 - 1.719. Purpose
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1455A1.txt
  • how Verizon's conduct could comply with section 251(c)(4), but still violate the reasonableness standard of sections 201(b) and 202(a). Given these circumstances, we deny Metro Teleconnect's Complaint in its entirety. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 208, and 251 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 208, 251, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned formal complaint is DENIED, and this proceeding is hereby TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 208. See Formal Complaint, Metro Teleconnect Companies, Inc. v.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1528A1.txt
  • the Commission and any judicial review thereof shall be the exclusive remedies available to the parties. conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we grant Petitioners' joint petition for Commission preemption of the New York Commission over the disputes between Verizon and MFS and Verizon and Brooks Fiber and invite Petitioners to file for resolution of these disputes under 47 C.F.R. � 1.720 et seq. ordering clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 252, and sections 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b), the joint petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by Petitioners on March 20, 2003, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1930A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion for Dismissal of the above-captioned proceeding IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2101A1.txt
  • jurisdiction over FDVS for the purpose of carrying out the Commission's statutory responsibilities. III. DISCUSSION 9. As a threshold matter, we must determine whether Staton's complaints comply with the filing requirements of the Act and the Commission's rules. Section 208 of the Act states that a complaint must be directed against ``any common carrier subject to this Act.'' Further, section 1.720(b) of the Commission's rules states that a formal complaint ``must contain facts which, if true, are sufficient to constitute a violation of the Act or Commission order or regulation.'' Section 1.721(a) of the Commission's rules states that a formal complaint shall contain a ``[c]itation to the section of the Communications Act and/or order and/or regulation of the Commission alleged to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3183A1.txt
  • these requirements. On September 25, 2003, STIC.NET, LP (STIC.NET), an ISP, filed a complaint regarding AOL Time Warner's compliance with these Internet access requirements. Because STIC.NET failed to provide supporting documentation or affidavits to support its complaint, as required by the Commission's rules and the Order, the complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice. STIC.NET's Complaint fails to comply with Section 1.720(c) of the Commission's rules. Section 1.720(c) of the Commission's rules requires that formal complaint pleadings contain facts that are supported by relevant documentation or affidavit. While STIC.NET did provide a reasonably detailed report describing the conduct that is the subject of its complaint, STIC.NET made no attempt to provide supporting documentation or affidavits. The complaint, as filed, is not sufficient
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-365A1.txt
  • public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 252(e)(5), and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the above-captioned complaint filed by Cox and Verizon South IS GRANTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 252(e)(5) of the
• 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
  • of disputes and by postponing the need for further litigation and expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of this Commission until such time as may actually be necessary. In addition, the public interest will be served by affording KIS sufficient time to construct a formal complaint that complies with the Commission's rigorous rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, should such a complaint be necessary. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3 and 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.3, 1.718, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1307A1.txt
  • public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.729 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.729, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint, the Supplemental Complaint and the Petition ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and this proceeding is hereby terminated. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1339A1.txt
  • MCI Answer at 20. Joint Statement at 4, para. 2. Letter from Walter Staton, Executive Vice President, Staton Wholesale to Lynn Vermillera and David Hunt, FCC, October 14, 2003 (``Staton Letter''). See Motion of MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc to Strike, filed October 23, 2003. See Staton's Opposition to Motion to Strike, filed October 29, 2003. See generally 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. Even if we had considered the letter, it does not add additional facts or issues that would change the outcome of this proceeding. The letter focuses mainly on Staton's speculation regarding potential motives MCI may have had to intentionally disconnect Staton from the All Eights Number. Staton does not, however, support its speculative theories with record evidence. Joint Statement at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1604A1.txt
  • interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.729 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.729, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1682A1.txt
  • quarter for which dial-around compensation is being billed. The parties shall calculate the applicable interest using the base damages amounts set forth in section III.D, supra. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Complainants' Supplemental Complaint for Damages IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein as to Complainants APCC Services, Inc., Data Net Systems, LLC, and Intera Communications Corp. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
• 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
  • action within sixty (60) days after notice of termination or expiration of the automatic stay in Cable & Wireless' bankruptcy proceedings, rather than filing an entirely new formal complaint. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Qwest's and U.S. South's Joint Request for Dismissal With Prejudice as to U.S. South IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2078A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Madison River's and BellSouth's joint motion for dismissal with prejudice IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-259A1.txt
  • and fostering diligence in the discovery process and respect for the Commission's complaint processes as a whole. Accordingly, we deny Verizon's request to admit the Documents into the record. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 15. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Documents may not be entered into the record of this proceeding, and that Verizon's Answer is stricken. Commission staff will promptly issue a schedule for further actions to be taken in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2865A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2865A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2865A1.txt
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2866A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2866A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2866A1.txt
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2972A1.txt
  • and by postponing the need for litigation and expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of this Commission until such time as may actually be necessary. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Request to Convert IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3265A1.txt
  • of Anchorage, Inc., d/b/a Alaska Communications Systems, ACS Local Service, and ACS; ACS of Fairbanks, d/b/a Alaska Communications Systems, ACS Local Service, and ACS; and ACS of Alaska, Inc., d/b/a Alaska Communications Systems, ACS Local Service, and ACS (collectively ``ACS''), pursuant to sections 201, 202, 251, and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules. The complaint alleges, among other things, that ACS has failed to comply with the Act and the Commission's rules requiring the non-discriminatory provisioning of unbundled network elements and telecommunications services for resale. In December 2003, the parties jointly requested that the Commission defer establishing a further schedule in this proceeding, because they were actively engaged in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3476A1.txt
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3477A1.txt
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-354A1.txt
  • the Commission and any judicial review thereof shall be the exclusive remedies available to the parties. conclusion For the foregoing reasons, to the extent described herein we grant Northland's petition for preemption of the New York Commission over the dispute between Verizon and Northland, and invite Verizon and Northland to file for resolution of this dispute under 47 C.F.R. � 1.720 et seq. ordering clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 252, and sections 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b), the petition for preemption filed by Northland Networks, Ltd. on November 14, 2003 IS GRANTED to the extent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3569A1.txt
  • 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727, Verizon's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Defer, is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, Broadview's formal complaint of December 30, 2003 SHALL BE CONVERTED into an informal complaint with a designated filing date of December 30, 2003, and that the formal complaint and answer
• 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
  • 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 sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice the Complaint against the Remaining Defendants IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• 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
  • Act. Section 208 places a duty on the Commission to forward the complaint to the common carrier(s) involved which, in turn, must either satisfy the complaint or answer it in writing within a time period specified by the Commission. Subpart E establishes the rules for the submission and treatment of two categories of complaints: (1) formal complaints, governed by sections 1.720 - 1.736; and (2) informal complaints, governed by sections 1.716-1.719. The informal complaint rules emphasize ease of filing by consumers and voluntary cooperative efforts by consumers and affected companies to resolve their differences informally. The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau's analysis of part 1, subpart E will be limited to informal complaints. Need: The informal complaint rules are designed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1972A1.txt
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1973A1.txt
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1974A1.txt
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1975A1.txt
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1976A1.txt
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-19A1.txt
  • section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 208 permits any person to lodge a complaint with the Commission against a common carrier alleging a violation of the Communications Act. Subpart E establishes the rules for the submission and treatment of two categories of complaints against common carriers. These are ``Formal Complaints,'' which are governed by sections 1.720 - 1.736, and ``Informal Complaints,'' which are governed by sections 1.716-1.719. The Informal Complaint rules emphasize ease of filing by consumers, and voluntary cooperative efforts by consumers and affected companies to resolve their differences informally. The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau's analysis of Part 1, Subpart E will be limited to ``Informal Complaints'' governed by sections 1.716 - 1.719. Purpose
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2214A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2214A1.txt
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint, File No. EB-05-MD-005 (filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2655A1.txt
  • this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau . . . (``SBC/Ameritech
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-265A1.txt
  • were we to rule in their favor on this remaining claim. Accordingly, we need not address this claim, and we hereby dismiss it without prejudice. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated pursuant to sections 0.111 and 0.131 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.131, that Complainants' claims under sections 201(b) and 276 of the Act are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 416 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3072A1.txt
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaints ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in their entirety and the proceedings ARE TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-435A1.txt
  • the parties to proceed with mediation, instead of a formal complaint proceeding, at the present time. Accordingly, we hereby GRANT the complainants' request to withdraw this complaint without prejudice and TERMINATE this proceeding. This Order is issued pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.722, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr, Division Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Law Offices BLOOSTON, MORDKOFSKY, DICKENS, DUFFY & PRENDERGAST 2120 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 (202) 659-0830 Facsimile: (202) 828-5568
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-64A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-64A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-64A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 1
• 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
  • informal complaints into formal complaints to minimize the burden and expense on all parties and the Commission. First, pursuant to section 1.722(c) of the Commission's rules, we will bifurcate complaint proceedings and determine damages in a separate proceeding. Therefore, the issue of damages should not be addressed in either the complaint or answer. Second, we waive the requirements in sections 1.720-1.723 of the Commission's rules setting forth the requirements for filing formal complaints, except as follows: 1.721(a)(1) A formal complaint shall contain the name of each complainant and defendant; 1.721(a)(2) The occupation, address and telephone number of each complainant and, to the extent known, each defendant. 1.721(a)(3) The name, address and telephone number of complainant's attorney, if represented by counsel. 1.721(a)(8)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-119A1.txt
  • promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Letter to Lisa B. Griffin and Anthony J. DeLaurentis, FCC, from Frank G. Lamancusa, counsel for GCI, and James F. Bendernagel, Jr., counsel for the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1424A1.txt
  • Initial Brief at 14-15. We find that there is no remaining dispute in this case, and no requested relief remaining for us to grant. Accordingly, we dismiss the Complaint as moot. Ordering Clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 254(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as moot, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Complaint,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2467A1.txt
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736, 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 Western Payphone Systems Formal Complaint for Payphone Compensation, File No. EB-06-MD-009 (filed Sept. 21, 2006) (``Complaint''). Motion to Dismiss, File No. EB-06-MD-009 (filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-47A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-47A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-47A1.txt
  • this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau . . Motion to Dismiss,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-520A1.txt
  • have concurrent jurisdiction over the issues in dispute in this proceeding, and our order of dismissal should not be construed as agreeing or disagreeing with Momentum's assertion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208 and 271, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Motion to Withdraw, File No. EB-05-MD-029 (filed Mar. 2, 2006) (``Motion''). Formal Complaint, File No. EB-05-MD-029 (filed Nov. 21, 2005) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. �� 208
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-545A1.txt
  • by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-65A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-65A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-65A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-66A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-66A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-66A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-68A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-68A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-68A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-69A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-69A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-69A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-70A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-70A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-70A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-71A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-71A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-71A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-817A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-817A1.txt
  • by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-818A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-818A1.txt
  • by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2079A1.txt
  • * * REDACTED * * * ]. In turn, the record does not demonstrate that federal case law supports Network's request for a stay absent a pledge of security for the full judgment amount. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Network's Motion to Stay the Damages Order IS DENIED, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Network's Motion for Leave to File a Reply IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.txt
  • at 10-11, � 34. Salsgiver Telecom also asserted a request for damages, citing �� 206-209 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 206-209. Complaint at 8-9, � 29. It did not, however, offer proof of any alleged damages, nor did it comply with the Commission's rules for bringing complaints for damages under sections 206-208 of the Act. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720 - 1.736. As a result of these deficiencies, we are unable to assess the merits of Salsgiver Telecom's request for damages and therefore deny it. Complaint at 7-9, �� 24-30. See Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C. v. North Pittsburgh Tel. Co., File No. EB-05-MD-014 (Complaint filed July 8, 2005); DQE Communications Network Servs. v. North Pittsburgh Tel. Co., File No. EB-05-MD-027
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3498A1.txt
  • promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736, that the Letter request is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Letter from Susan Lea to Colleen K. Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications Consumer Division, FCC, File No. EB-07-TC-F-009 (dated July 11, 2007) (``Letter''). This matter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-667A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-667A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-667A1.txt
  • amended. As part of this review, the Commission sought recommendations from the public concerning whether these rules and procedures should be modified or eliminated. II. SCOPE OF REVIEW The Commission identified the following rule parts containing regulations administered by the Enforcement Bureau for review and comment in the Public Notice: Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 and 1.720 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of formal complaints against common carriers. Sections 1.80 and 1.89 of the Commission's rules address forfeiture proceedings and penalties and Notice of Violations proceedings. Increased competition in the marketplace does not diminish the need for these rules, and thus we do not find that they are no longer necessary in the public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-672A1.txt
  • section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 208 permits any person to lodge a complaint with the Commission against a common carrier alleging a violation of the Communications Act. Subpart E establishes the rules for the submission and treatment of two categories of complaints against common carriers. These are ``Formal Complaints,'' which are governed by sections 1.720 - 1.736, and ``Informal Complaints,'' which are governed by sections 1.716-1.719. The Informal Complaint rules emphasize ease of filing by consumers, and voluntary cooperative efforts by consumers and affected companies to resolve their differences informally. The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau's analysis of Part 1, Subpart E will be limited to ``Informal Complaints'' governed by sections 1.716 - 1.719. Purpose
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1205A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections
• 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
  • 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., Application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2472A1.txt
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that NewSouth's Complaint against BellSouth in the above-captioned proceeding IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau As a result of transactions consummated in 2004,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2663A1.txt
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that APCC's Complaint against Next-G in the above-captioned proceeding IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint, File No. EB-08-MD-006 (filed Aug. 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint of Verizon, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed July 25,
• 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
  • 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 Sess.
• 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
  • 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 Sess.
• 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
  • 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, 97th
• 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
  • 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. 51
• 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
  • 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. 2d
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.txt
  • is dispositive of this issue, we also note that DeMoss has failed to submit documentation in support of this claim. DeMoss references selected portions of Sprint's FCC Tariff No. 1, section 2.3.1(A), and selected portions of the Industry Guidelines for Toll-Free Number Administration, but he fails to present these documents as a part of the record, in accordance with sections 1.720(f) and (h), and 1.721(a)(11) of the Commission's rules. D. Remedies 1. Whether Equity Requires the Return of the AMERICA Toll-Free Numbers to DeMoss 31. In seeking equitable relief, DeMoss asks that we order Sprint to reinstate the AMERICA toll-free numbers to him. The relief that DeMoss seeks, however, obviously cannot be granted without causing harm to the current user of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.txt
  • Bureau recommends that the Commission seek comment on whether it should require (as it already does in the voice context) that any service provider accept a cancellation request from a customer's authorized agent. Conclusion and REcommendationS In sum, for all of the foregoing reasons, and pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 222, and 303(r) of the Act, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, we recommend that the Commission (i) DENY Complainants' claim (i.e., Count I) that Verizon's customer retention marketing practices violate section 222(b) of the Act; and (ii) DENY Complainants' claim (i.e., Count II) that Verizon's customer retention marketing practices violate section 222(a) of the Act. Complainants' claim (i.e., Count III) that Verizon's customer retention marketing practices violate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.txt
  • MAP's section 415 claims are thus not supported by either the statutory language or the purpose of the statutory provision. We therefore deny Counts XXII and XXIII of MAP's Complaint. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that SBC Communications, Inc., Ameritech Corporation, Pacific Bell Communications, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. are hereby DISMISSED as parties, without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1086A1.txt
  • satisfied that dismissing the Complaint with prejudice will serve the public interest by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that CassTel's Motion to Dismiss IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alex Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1508A1.txt
  • will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to defendants Matrix Management, Inc. and ZCom Networks, Inc., and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED as to defendants Matrix Management,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1580A1.txt
  • with prejudice. We are satisfied that dismissing the Petition with prejudice will serve the public interest by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 1.106, 1.720 - 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.106, 1.720 - 1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that MAP Mobile Communications, Inc.'s Notice of Settlement and Request for Dismissal of Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED and its Petition for Partial Reconsideration or Clarification is hereby DISMISSED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1803A1.txt
  • CNS with prejudice will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of the dispute between APCC and CNS and by eliminating the need for further litigation as between these two parties. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion to Dismiss CCI Network Services, Inc. is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to defendant CCI Network Services, Inc., and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED as to defendant CCI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1983A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes, and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 1 Formal Complaint, File No. EB-09-MD-002 (filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.txt
  • Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 8, 2009, the above-named complainant (``APCC Services'') filed with this Commission a formal complaint against Dollar Phone Corp., RespOrgUSA, Inc., Dollar Phone Access, Inc., Dollar Phone Enterprise, Inc., Dollar Phone Services, Inc., and Global Switching, Inc., (``Defendants'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and section 1.720 et seq. of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants violated sections 201(b) and 276(b) of the Act and sections 64.1300 and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules by failing to pay dial-around compensation to payphone service providers represented by APCC Services. On July 16, 2009, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint and in which they denied
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.txt
  • attachment, to Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, from Kathy Baker and Keith Liljestrand, representatives of Pulsar, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 15, 2009) (``Pulsar Memorandum''). Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 22, 2009) (``January 22 Letter''). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720, 1.724, 1.728. January 22 Letter at 2. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 27, 2009) (``January 27 Letter''). January 27 Letter at 3. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2191A1.txt
  • matter will serve the public interest by eliminating the need for the expenditure of further time and resources by the Commission, and by affording the parties certainty about the status of this proceeding. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to defendants Network Management, Inc. and USP Communications, Inc., and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-755A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes, and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the July 2008 and March 2009 Motions ARE GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief, Market Disputes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.txt
  • the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Request for Resolution on the Pleadings IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 209, and sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Formal Complaint IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein, and is otherwise denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 209 of
• 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
  • when Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2614 (1993); Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. AT&T Communications, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 8130 (1989), aff'd sub nom. Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. FCC, 915 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 920 (1991). See generally 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.735. messages on his residential phone line. Defendants' Response to Staff's Request at 5. Verizon further states that it takes Verizon's systems longer to update non-marketing, non-sales lists as opposed to messages used as a part of a marketing or sales campaign that must be updated in accordance with federal and state requirements. Id. 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3) (emphasis added). See
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-755A1.txt
  • satisfied that dismissing the claim against CCI Communications, Inc.; Creative Communications, Inc.; and Link Systems, Inc. will serve the public interest by eliminating the need for further litigation as between these two parties. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j) and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 4(i), 4(j) and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion to Dismiss defendants CCI Communications, Inc.; Creative Communications, Inc.; and Link Systems, Inc. IS GRANTED and the complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to defendants CCI Communications, Inc.; Creative Communications, Inc.;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.txt
  • pass through. 6.11 Information, documentation, and training. SUBPART D-ENFORCEMENT Brief Description, Need and Legal Basis: See Subpart A above. Section Number and Title: 6.15 Generally. 6.16 Informal or formal complaints. 6.17 Informal complaints; form and content. 6.18 Procedure; designation of agents for service. 6.19 Answers to informal complaints. 6.20 Review and disposition of informal complaints. 6.21 Formal complaints, applicability of 1.720 through 1.736 of this chapter. 6.22 Formal complaints based on unsatisfied informal complaints. 6.23 Actions by the Commission on its own motion. PART 7-ACCESS TO VOICEMAIL AND INTERACTIVE MENU SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT BY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES SUBPART A-SCOPE-WHO MUST COMPLY WITH THESE RULES? Brief Description: Part 7 of the Commission's rules was adopted in 1999. These rules set forth the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-917A1.pdf
  • arrangement on the requesting provider's provision of mobile data serviceto its 4 own subscribers using a generation of wireless technology comparable to the technology on which the requesting provider seeks to roam. (47 C.F.R. � 20.12(e)(1)) �A party alleging a violation of this data roaming requirement may file a formal or informal complaint pursuant to the procedures in �� 1.716-1.718, 1.720, 1.721, and 1.723-1.735. For purposes of section 20.12(e) as referenced above, references to a "carrier" or "common carrier" in the formal and informal complaint procedures that are extended here, as applicable, will mean a provider of commercial mobile data services. �Regarding data roaming disputes, the Commission will resolve such disputes on a case- by-case basis, taking into consideration the totality
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-967A1.txt
  • complaints. For further information, contact the Enforcement Bureau at 202-418-7330. Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, FCC 11-16, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1594 (2011) (``Part 1 Order''). Id. at � � 10, 15. Id. at � 10. Id. at � 15. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Note that these new rules do not affect existing section 208 formal complaints or existing section 224 pole attachment complaints. They also do not concern carrier-to-carrier informal complaints. See Id. at Appendix A, (listing new rule �1.49(f)(1)(i) that requires ``[f]ormal complaint proceedings under Section 208 . . . '' to be filed electronically and excluding informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-207126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-207126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-207126A1.txt
  • a request from the premises owner to relocate the demarcation point to the MPOE. The telephone company must negotiate terms in good faith and complete the negotiations within forty-five days from said request. Premises owners may file complaints with the Commission for resolution of allegations of bad faith bargaining by telephone companies. See 47 U.S.C. Section 208; 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.720-1.736 (1999) . 3. The rule as corrected will be published in the Federal Register summary of the Competitive Networks First Report and Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Schlichting Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Promotion of Competitive Networks in Local Telecommunications Markets, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Wt Docket No. 99-217, Fifth Report and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-225458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-225458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-225458A1.txt
  • operations. Formal Complaints A Formal Complaint is a formal allegation that a common carrier has failed to comply with the Communications Act or the Commission's rules or orders. Formal Complaints are filed pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 208. The Commission's procedures regarding the review and resolution of such complaints are set forth in sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. Accounting and Audits The Commission conducts a program of comprehensive and selective audits and investigations of carriers' financial and operating practices, procedures, and records. It is also charged with recommending annual depreciation rates applicable to all classes of telecommunications plant of domestic and overseas common carriers. Various financial filings are required of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249892A1.pdf
  • operations. Formal Complaints A Formal Complaint is a formal allegation that a common carrier has failed to comply with the Communications Act or the Commission's rules or orders. Formal Complaints are filed pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 208. The Commission's procedures regarding the review and resolution of such complaints are set forth in sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. Accounting and audits The commission conducts a program of comprehensive and selective audits and investigations of carriers' financial and operating practices, procedures, and records. It is also charged with recommending annual depreciation rates applicable to all classes of telecommunications plant of domestic and overseas common carriers. Various financial filings are required of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267890A1.pdf
  • operations. Formal Complaints A Formal Complaint is a formal allegation that a common carrier has failed to comply with the Communications Act and the Commission's rules or orders. Formal Complaints are filed pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 208. The Commission's procedures regarding the review and resolution of such complaints are set forth in sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. Accounting and Audits The Commission conducts a program of comprehensive and selective audits and investigations of carriers' financial and operating practices, procedures, and records. It is also charged with recommending annual depreciation rates applicable to all classes of telecommunications plant of domestic and overseas common carriers. Various financial filings are required of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280241A1.pdf
  • operations. Formal Complaints A Formal Complaint is a formal allegation that a common carrier has failed to comply with the Communications Act and the Commission's rules or orders. Formal Complaints are filed pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 208. The Commission's procedures regarding the review and resolution of such complaints are set forth in sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. Accounting and Audits The Commission conducts a program of comprehensive and selective audits and investigations of carriers' financial and operating practices, procedures, and records. It is also charged with recommending annual depreciation rates applicable to all classes of telecommunications plant of domestic and overseas common carriers. Various financial filings are required of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290290A1.pdf
  • and in support of the Commission's operations. Formal Complaints A Formal Complaint is a formal allegation that a common carrier has failed to comply with the Communications Act. Formal Complaints are filed pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 208. The Commission's procedures regarding the review and resolution of such complaints are set forth in sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. Accounting and Audits The Commission conducts a program of comprehensive and selective audits and investigations of carriers' financial and operating practices, procedures, and records. It is also charged with recommending annual depreciation rates applicable to all classes of telecommunications plant of domestic and overseas common carriers. Various financial filings are required of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-304623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-304623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-304623A1.txt
  • 4, paragraph 8, is corrected by adding ``after the issuance of an NAL'' after the phrase ``for purposes of our ex parte rules''. Page 4, paragraph 10, is corrected by inserting the word ``formal'' after the words ``Newly filed'' and before the words ``complaints concerning common carriers under Section 208''. Footnotes 16 and 38 are corrected by replacing ``��1.711'' with ``��1.720''. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Austin C. Schlick General Counsel Office of General Counsel Federal Communications Commission $
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308193A1.pdf
  • in support of the Commission's operations. Formal Complaints A Formal Complaint is a formal allegation that a common carrier has failed to comply with the Communications Act. Formal Complaints are filed pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 208. The Commission's procedures regarding the filing, review and resolution of such complaints are set forth in sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. Accounting and Audits The Commission conducts a program of comprehensive and selective audits and investigations of carriers' financial and operating practices, procedures, and records. It is also charged with recommending annual depreciation rates applicable to all classes of telecommunications plant of domestic and overseas common carriers. Various financial filings are required of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-108A1.txt
  • generally is not available for purposes of rearguing matters on which there has been deliberation and decision.33 27 id. 28 Call-Back Order, 9 FCC Red at 2292; Call-Back Reconsideration, 10 FCC Red at 9557-58. 29 . ITL Order, 12 FCC Red at 15011-12. 30 ITL Order, 12 FCC Red at 15012. Jl. Petition at 12. 32 See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720(b)-(c), 1.721(a)(5). See also Febrer v. Sprint Corp., 13 FCC Red 150, 160 (Com.Car.Bur. Dec. 31, 1997). 33 MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., 5 FCC Red 3463, 3463-64 (1990) (citing Empire Bell Tel. Co., 10 FCC 2d 341,342 (1967) and Petitions for Reconsideration of Commission Action, 77 FCC 2d 54 (1980)). 6014 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-108 D.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-135A1.txt
  • by � 64.1100(e) of this part, has occurred using such proof and any evidence supplied by the subscriber. Failure by the carrier to respond or provide proof of verification will be presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Election of Forum. The Federal Communications Commission will not adjudicate a complaint filed pursuant to � 1.719 or �� 1.720-736, involving an alleged unauthorized change, as defined by � 64.1100(e) of this part, while a complaint based on the same set of facts is pending with a state commission. 7. Part 64, Subpart K, is further amended by adding section 64.1160 to read as follows: � 64.1160 Absolution Procedures Where the Subscriber Has Not Paid Charges This section shall only
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-216A1.txt
  • a proceeding and any judicial review of such findings shall be the exclusive remedies available to the parties.23 III.CONCLUSION 10. For the foregoing reasons, we grant Starpower's Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction over its complaints against Bell Atlantic and GTE and invite Starpower to file for resolution of its disputes with Bell Atlantic and GTE under 47 C.F.R. � 1.720 et seq. 19 See Comments of Bell Atlantic and GTE at 3. We note that Starpower's appeal to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia seeks only a determination that the Virginia Commission failed to exercise its discretion properly. The appeal does not ask the District Court to interpret the underlying merits of the dispute or otherwise
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-366A1_Erratum.pdf
  • pointwillbeatthe MPOE.Forexample,wefindnosupportforBeIISouth'sassertionthatservicequalitywould sufferifthedemarcationpointweremoved,norforitsassertionthatitwouldlosegoodwillwithitscustomers becauseofproblemswithinsidewiringnolongerunderitscontrol.BellSouthCommentsat 8.Therecordalsodoes notsupportBeHSouth'sclaimthatpropertyownerswillnotbeabletoundertakeresponsibilityforwiringtheir premises.Idat19-20.Indeed,theRealAccessAlliancehasstatedthatitsmembersadvocatehavingsuchchoicein the handsofpremisesownersandfeelitisthebestwaytoprovidetenantswithchoiceinadvanced telecommunicationsservices. SeeJune16RealAccessAllianceLetter.WealsorejecttheargumentofBellSouth thatpermittingbuildingownerstocontroltheinsidewiringwoulddiscouragetheplacementoffiberfacilitiesinthe buildingandthusdiscouragetheprovisionofadvancedservices.Webelievethatwheredemandforadvanced servicesexists,therewillbesufficientincentiveforincumbentLECs,competitiveLECsandotherthirdpartiesto undertaketheinstallationoffiberfacilitiesregardlessofthelocationofthedemarcationpoint.Moreover,contrary continuelL..) 23007 FederalCommunicationsCommission FCC00-366 premises,theinclLmbentca.mermustmovethedemarcationpointtotheMPOEuponthepremises owner'srequest.Section68.3(b)(2)specifiesthatinmultiunitpremisesinwhichinsidewiringis installedorsubjecttoamajormodificationafterAugust13,1990,ifthecarrierdoesnotelecttoplace thedemarcationpointattheMPOE,thepremisesownershalldeterminethenumberandlocationofthe demarcationpointorpoints(e.g.,asinglepointattheMPOE).126Inthe1997DemarcationPointOrder, theCommissionfoundthatamultiunitpremisesowner'srequesttomovethedemarcationpointtothe MPOEconstitutesamajormodificationforthepurposesofSection68.3(b)(2).127Thus,evenin multiunitpremisesLnwhichtheoriginalwiringwasinstalledpriortoAugust13,1990,thepremises ownermayrequirethecarriertomovethedemarcationpointtotheMPOE.Wedisagreewith Bel1South'sassertioninitspetitionforclarificationandreconsiderationofthe1997DemarcationPoint thatthepremisesownershouldberequiredtonegotiatechangesinthedemarcationpointlocationwith thecarrierservingthebuilding.128Webelievethatitwouldimpedethedevelopmentoffacilities-based competitionifacarriercouldrefuseapremisesowner'srequesttomovethedemarcationpointtothe propertylineinordertopreventtheconnectionofinside'wiringtoacompetitivecarrier.Thus,we affirmthatunderSection68.3oftheCommission'srules,acarriermustmovethedemarcationpointto theMPOEupontherequestofamultiunitpremisesowner,andwedenyBellSouth'spetition. 55.Second,althoughwehavepreviouslyrequiredincumbentLECstomovethedemarcation pointtotheMPOEatthepremisesowner'srequest,wehaveleftthetermsofrelocationandthe proceduresfornegotiatingthosetermsuptothepartiesinvolved.Thecommentsofbuildingownersare generallyfavorabletotheserulesgivingtheownertherighttorequestathatthedemarcationpointbe placedattheMPOE.129However,therecordindicatesthatthelackofanyguidelinesforsuchtermsmay provideadisincentiveforthepartiestonegotiateeffectively.Weholdthatinordertofurther competition,arequestbyapropertyownertorelocatethedemarcationpointtotheMPOEmustbedealt withinareasonablytimelyandfairmanner,soasnottoundulydelayorhindercompetitiveLEeaccess. WethereforedirectincumbentLECstoconcludenegotiationswithrequestingbuildingownersingood faithandwithin45daysoftheinitialrequest.BuildingownersmayfilecomplaintswiththeCommission forresolutionofallegationsofbadfaithbargainingbyLECs.noAseachsituationwillvarygreatly dependingonsuchcharacteristicsastheageandcomplexityoftheinsidewiring,andarlYprevious agreementsandpractices,wefindthatthisapproachwillfacilitatecompetition,whileprotectingthevalid propertyinterestsoftheparties.l3lTheseruleswillapplyaswentocompetitiveLECswheretheyhave installedorhavehadcontroloftheinsidewiring. (Continuedfrompreviouspage)------------- toBellSouth'scontention,therecordindicatesthatbuildingownerswouldbewillingtopayforandmaintainsuch facilities. 12647CF.R.�68.3(b)(2). 127 See1997DemarcationPointOrder,12FCCRcdat11915n.l04;see47CF.R.�68.3(b){2). 128BellSouthPetitionat4. 129 SeeRealAccessAlliancecommentsat59. 130 See47U.S.C�208;47CF.R.��1.720-1.736(1999). 131InthiscontextweseenoreasontodistinguishbetweenbuildingsconstructedpriortoandafterAugust13,1990. Thereforeweholdthattheserulesshallapplytoanexistingbuildingsregardlessofwhenconstructed. 23008 FederalCommunicationsCommission FCC00-366 56.Therecordfurtherindicatesthatuncertaintyastotheactuallocationofthedemarcation pointleadstoconfusiononthepartofbothbuildingownersandcompetitiveLECs.132Thisconfusion canleadtoadditionalexpenseanddelayin,theprovisionofservice.CompetitiveLECsneedthis informationinorderto!mowwithwhichpartytonegotiateinterconnectiontotheinsidewiring.The recordcontainsinstanceswhereneitherorboththeincumbentLECandbuildingownerclaimed ownershipoftheinsidewire,causingdelayintheabilityofthecompetitiveLECtocommenceserviceto itscustomers.133WhileourcurrentrulesrequirethatincumbentLECsmustmakethelocationofthe demarcationpointavailabletobuildingownersuponrequestbytheowner,weareconcernedthatthe informationmaynotbeprovidedinaspromptamannerasitreasonablyshouldbe.134Theincumbent LECsaregenerallyinthebestpositionto!mowthelocationofthedemarcationpoint,andwebelievethat theyshouldnotbepermittedtousetheircontroloversuchnon-proprietaryinformationinorderto frustratecompetition.Becauseexcessivedelaymayimposeunnecessarycostsandimpedecompetition, weholdthatifanincumbentLECfailstoproducethisinformationwithintenbusinessdaysofthe request,thepremisesownermaypresumethedemarcationpointtobelocatedattheMPOE.The availabilityofthisinformationwillfacilitatefairnegotiations,andmayevennegatetheneedforany negotiationswhere,forexample,thebuildingownerwasunawarethatthedemarcationpointisalreadyat theMPOE.WefurtherrequirethatwhereLECsdonotestablishapracticeofplacingthedemarcation pointattheMPOE,theyfullyinformbuildingowners,atthetimeofinstallation,oftheiroptions regardingplacement. 57.Finally,wenotethatwherethebuildingownerchoosestolocatethedemarcationpointatthe MPOE,responsibilityforinstallationandmaintenancemaybecontractedouttotheincumbentLEC,a competitiveLECorotherthirdparty,135butcontrol,includingdeterminingtermsofaccess,wouldlie withthebuildingowner.Werequirethatwheresuchdutiesarecontractedtoacarrierthatisalso providingservicetothatbuilding,thecarriermustdealwithotherLECsonnondiscriminatoryterms. Similarly,weexpectthatthosebuildingownerswhochoosetotakecontroloftheinsidewiringwill exercisethatcontrolinanondiscriminatoryway,consistentwiththegoalsoftheTelecommunications Actandthepublicinterest.136 58.Weanticipatethatthemeasuresdescribedabovewillsubstantiallyreducethepotentialfor incumbentLECstoobstructcompetitiveaccesstoMTEs.Thesechangeswillfacilitatebuildingowners' exerciseoftheiroptiontorelocatethedemarcationpointinexistingbuildings,andpreventincumbent LECsfromabusingtheircontroloverinformationregardingthelocationofthedemarcationpoint. Moreover,weemphasizethattotheextentincumbentLECscontinuetoexercisecontroloveron- 132 Sf;e RealAccessAllianceCommentsat60;BlueStarCommunicationsReplyCommentsat2. 133 Id. 134 See 47C.F,R. �68.110(c).ThissectionoftheCommission'sRulesrequiresLECstomakeavailablealltechnical informationregardingtheconfigurationofwiringonthecustomer'ssideofthedemarcationpoint,butitdoesnot requirethatitdosoinaspecifiedtime.Further,whilethissectionallowstheLECtochargereasonablecostsforthis teclmicalinformation,webelievethatanycostsincurredinprovidingthelocationofthedemarcationpointwouldbe deminimis andthattheLECsshouldprovidethisinformationfreely. 135 Thisarrangementwouldbesimilartothatinsingleunit'residentialproperties,wherethecustomerhastheoption topayamonthlyfeetotheincumbentLECforinsidewiringmaintenancewhileretainingownershipandcontrolof thatwiring. 136 See September6RealAccessAllianceLetter. 23009 FederalCommunicationsCommission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-400A1.txt
  • to relocate the demarcation point to the MPOE. The provider of wireline telecommunications services must negotiate terms in good faith and complete the relocation within forty-five days from said request. Premises owners may file complaints with the Commission for resolution of allegations of bad faith bargaining by provider of wireline telecommunications services. See 47 U.S.C. Section 208; 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.720-1.736 (1999). (4) The provider of wireline telecommunications services shall make available information on the location of the demarcation point within ten business days of a request from the premises owner. If the provider of wireline telecommunications services does not provide the information within that time, the premises owner may presume the demarcation point to be at the MPOE. Notwithstanding the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-110A1.txt
  • Revised Complaint, File No. E-98-48 (filed Sept. 4, 1998), � 36. Complaint, File No. E-98-49 (filed July 15, 1998), � 32-33. The Defendants identify additional procedural deficiencies in Verizon's Supplemental Complaints and argue that the complaints should be dismissed or denied as a result. MCI Answer at 6-7, 13-15; Global Crossing Answer, Part III at 2-5. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.720 (establishing general pleading requirements); 47 C.F.R. � 1.721(a) (establishing rules for format and content of complaints); 47 C.F.R. � 1.722(c) (establishing rules for requests for damages). We agree that Commission staff should have directed Verizon to amend its pleadings to correct the deficiencies. However, because the deficiencies have not compromised the Defendants' ability to address the legal issues raised in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.txt
  • providers other than the incumbent LEC). Hyperion Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8613. MCI WorldCom, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 209 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Mandatory Detariffing Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 10181. Access Charge Reform Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 15982. Id. at 16140. Id. Id. Id. at 16140-41. Id. at 16141. Id. See generally 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.735 (Commission rules governing formal complaints); 47 U.S.C. � 208. Access Charge Reform Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16141. . MGC Communications, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 14 FCC Rcd 11647 (1999). Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. MGC Communications, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 14027 (2000). Total Tel. v. AT&T, FCC 01-84, File No. E-97-003 (rel. Mar. 13, 2001) (Total Tel. Order). 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-185A1.txt
  • theory, however. BTI Initial Brief at 14. BTI also contends that ACC charges AT&T the competing ILEC access rate rather than the tariffed rate. BTI Amended Answer to AT&T Second Amended Complaint, � 26. In any event, BTI's attempt to plead an estoppel defense in its Amended Answer does not comply with the Commission's rules, see 47 C.F.R. �� 1.724(b), 1.720(b), because BTI failed to cite any legal authority supporting the affirmative defense and failed to allege and provide evidentiary support for facts which, if true, would establish an estoppel defense. See BTI Amended Answer to AT&T Second Amended Complaint, � 70-71. See Bell Atlantic Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPS, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC No. 00-383, 2000 WL
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-238A1.txt
  • to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 202(a), 208, 251(g), and 271 of Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 202(a), 208, 251(g), and 271, that the Formal Complaint filed by AT&T Corporation IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720 through 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, that AT&T's Motion to Strike, dated February 8, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary After AT&T filed this complaint, Bell Atlantic acquired NYNEX, which later merged with GTE to form Verizon Communications, Inc. Notwithstanding these corporate changes, for purposes of clarity this Order refers to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-78A1.txt
  • 1.735 of our rules to make clear that (1) a filing fee need not be paid in conjunction with filing a supplemental complaint for damages pursuant to section 1.722 of our rules, and (2) a complainant may serve a supplemental complaint for damages in accordance with section 1.735(f) rather than section 1.735(d). Moreover, we amend the rules so that sections 1.720(b) and 1.721(a)(4), (5), (8), (9), (12), and (13) do not apply to supplemental complaints for damages filed pursuant to section 1.722 of our rules. Thus, supplemental complaints for damages are not required to include the following: (1) a full description of the statutory violation described previously in the initial complaint; (2) a statement regarding whether a separate action has been
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-104A1.txt
  • Commission's Rules and Regulations, CC Docket No. 99-216, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 24944 (2000)(Part 68 Report and Order). See In the Matter of Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau, and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau; Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, Order, released March 14, 2002. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau retains authority to consider informal consumer complaints regarding Part 68 terminal equipment, as well as informal consumer complaints regarding hearing aid compatibility and volume control rules in Part 68. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.111 Note to Paragraph (a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 68.414. 5 U.S.C. � 553(b)(3)(A). See 5 U.S.C. � 553(d). (...continued from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-144A1.txt
  • slip op. (N.D. Ohio May 30, 2000) (``District Court Order''), attached as Exhibit A to Answer. Almost eight months later, on January 24, 2001, Orloff filed a formal complaint with the Commission implementing the primary jurisdiction referral. However, because that complaint failed in numerous and significant respects to comply with the Commission's rules governing formal complaints, see 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, Commission staff dismissed the complaint without prejudice on February 1, 2001. See Letter from Alexander P. Starr, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Randy J. Hart and Mark Griffin, counsel for Orloff (dated Feb. 1, 2001). Over two months later, Orloff filed a new complaint, which is the subject of this Order. See Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Arising out
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-182A1.txt
  • � 1.728(a). Amended Formal Complaint at 1. Id. Id. MCI WorldCom Answer at 17. See American Message Centers v. FCC, 50 F.3d 35, 41 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citing Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed Where Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1806, � 8 (1988)); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.720; Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed Where Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, 22508, � 22 (1997) (stating that ``our ... objective is to improve the utility and content of pleadings, so that the complaint, answer, and any necessary reply may serve as the principal basis upon which the Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-186A1.txt
  • See AT&T Complaint at 11, � 44; Beehive Answer at 7-8, � 44; Beehive Initial Brief at 23-24; AT&T Initial Brief at 22. We note that AT&T failed to enter into the record section 2.6 of NECA Tariff F.C.C. No. 5. This did not violate any existing rule, however. At the time the complaint was filed in this proceeding, section 1.720(h) of the Commission's rules merely encouraged parties to provide copies of any relevant tariff provisions. 47 C.F.R. � 1.720(h) (1996). This rule has since been revised to require that parties provide copies of relevant tariff provisions. 47 C.F.R. � 1.720(h) (2001). ), and assume that the current version does not materially differ from the version in effect at the relevant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-19A1.txt
  • No. 21-211 (see LTC Consulting at 1-2 and n.7). E-mail from Thomas Allibone, LTC Consulting, to Laurence Schecker, Office of General Counsel (Sept. 22, 2001). See also e-mail from Thomas Allibone, LTC Consulting, to Laurence Schecker, Office of General Counsel (Sept. 25, 2001). Id. See LTC Consulting at 2 n.13. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.716-1.719 (informal complaints); 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736 (formal complaints). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 19 a b � � 3 4 5 K ` a � 3 4 5 K a � � F �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� � � � � � � '' � � � � � � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-318A1.txt
  • toward E911 implementation that are not dependent on PSAP readiness. (vii) A copy of the certification must be served on the PSAP in accordance with section 1.47 of this chapter. The PSAP may challenge in writing the accuracy of the carrier's certification and shall serve a copy of such challenge on the carrier. See sections 1.45 and 1.47 and sections 1.720-1.736 of this chapter. (viii) If a wireless carrier's certification is facially inadequate, the six-month implementation period specified in paragraphs (d), (f) and (g) of this section will not be suspended as provided for in paragraph (j)(4) of this section. (ix) If a wireless carrier's certification is inaccurate, the wireless carrier will be liable for noncompliance as if the certification had
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-318A1_Erratum.doc
  • toward E911 implementation that are not dependent on PSAP readiness. (vii) A copy of the certification must be served on the PSAP in accordance with section 1.47 of this chapter. The PSAP may challenge in writing the accuracy of the carrier's certification and shall serve a copy of such challenge on the carrier. See sections 1.45 and 1.47 and sections 1.720-1.736 of this chapter. (viii) If a wireless carrier's certification is facially inadequate, the six-month implementation period specified in paragraphs (d), (f) and (g) of this section will not be suspended as provided for in paragraph (j)(4) of this section. (ix) If a wireless carrier's certification is inaccurate, the wireless carrier will be liable for noncompliance as if the certification had
• 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
  • informal common carrier complaint rules, ``[w]here there are clear indications from the carrier's [response] or from other communications with the parties that the complaint has been satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider a complaint proceeding to be closed, without response to the complainant.'' 47 C.F.R. �1.717. See 47 C.F.R. �1.718. See 47 C.F.R. �1.717. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. See, e.g., TSR Wireless LLC v. US West Communications, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 11,166 (2000). See 47 U.S.C. � 415 (b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.718. This section was intended to prevent expiration of the two-year limitation period on claims for damages during the pendency of the informal complaint process. Section 1.718, literally read, provides that informal complaints are deemed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-1A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-1A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-1A1.txt
  • counsel for CW USA and CW plc, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (rel. Sept. 25, 2001) (``Status Conference Order'') at 2, �� III.3, III.4; at 4, �� V.12, V.14. Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608, � 18 & n.51. Reconsideration Petition at 1, 9-13; Reconsideration Reply at 2-5. Reconsideration Petition at 11. Reconsideration Reply at 3. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 1.733(a)(5); 1.720 (a); 1.732 (c), (d). See Status Conference Order. Reconsideration Petition at 10-11; Reconsideration Reply at 4. Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, 22547, � 115 (1997) (``Formal Complaints Order''). Formal Complaints Order, 12 FCC Rcd at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-278A1.txt
  • virtual NXX defense on its merits, we do not address the question of whether Starpower's complaint in the liability phase of this proceeding provided sufficient notice to Verizon South of Starpower's intent to collect compensation for virtual NXX calls that Verizon South should have raised its virtual NXX defense in its answer in the liability phase. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720(a) (``[a]ll matters concerning a . . . defense . . . should be pleaded fully and with specificity''); 1.724(b) (the defendant's answer ``shall advise the complainant and the Commission fully and completely of the nature of any defense, and shall respond specifically to all material allegations of the complaint''); Starpower's Reply to Verizon South's Answer, File No. EB-00-MD-19 (filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-305A1.txt
  • toward E911 implementation that are not dependent on PSAP readiness. (vii) A copy of the certification must be served on the PSAP in accordance with section 1.47 of this chapter. The PSAP may challenge in writing the accuracy of the carrier's certification and shall serve a copy of such challenge on the carrier. See sections 1.45 and 1.47 and sections 1.720-1.735 of this chapter. (viii) If a wireless carrier's certification is facially inadequate, the six-month implementation period specified in paragraphs (d), (f) and (g) of this section will not be suspended as provided for in paragraph (j)(4) of this section. (ix) If a wireless carrier's certification is inaccurate, the wireless carrier will be liable for noncompliance as if the certification had
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-96A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-96A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-96A1.txt
  • Br. at 20-21. Core also alleges that Verizon delayed unreasonably in building the entrance facility. Core's Initial Br. at 15-20; Core's Reply Br. at 20-21. Yet, Core has failed to provide probative evidence supporting this allegation. Specifically, Core's Complaint provided no evidence to support its assertion. This failure, standing alone, could warrant disregard of Core's allegation. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720(c), 1.721 (a)(5), (a)(11). In any event, in subsequent briefing, Core relied on a single e-mail sent to Core by Verizon. Core's Initial Br. at 15-17 (citing Answer, Ex. 4 (Verizon e-mail to Core)). Yet this e-mail is reasonably read in the manner suggested by Verizon, see Verizon's Opp. Br. at 21, particularly given Core's failure to cite it until final
• 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
  • such facts. . . .''). Specifically, in one of its filings in the Notice-and-Comment Proceeding, Verizon stated: ``[I]f [OCI] truly believes the [PICC] charge is unlawful, it may file a complaint.'' Joint Statement Exhibit JS-21 (Bell Atlantic Opposition to Oncor Motion for Interim Relief, dated June 25, 1999) at 1. OCI Brief at 14-15, n.6. For example, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720(b)-(d) and 1.721(a)(5)-(6) required OCI to set forth in its Formal Complaint all the facts and legal analyses upon which the claims are based. See Formal Complaint Exhibit 10, Attachment C, at 1. See Formal Complaint Exhibit 10, Attachment D, at 2. See Joint Statement Exhibit JS-21 at 1. See generally Cablevision v. New York Tel, 46 FCC 2d at 706-7,
• 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
  • to address immediately two motions related to Network's statute of limitations defense. Consequently, we deny Network's application for review and affirm the Bureau Liability Order. Ordering Clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and 276, and sections 1.115, 1.720-1.736, and 64.1300 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.115, 1.720-1.736, and 64.1300, that Network's Application for Review IS DENIED, APCC's motion to strike IS DISMISSED as moot, and the Bureau Liability Order IS AFFIRMED to the extent described herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Application for Review, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed Mar. 1, 2005) (``Application''). 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-147A1.txt
  • Absent such an arrangement, we conclude, consistent with the D.C. Circuit's reasoning, that Qwest's charges for transporting one-way paging telecommunications traffic to Mountain from Qwest's own customers are unlawful. Ordering Clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736, 51.703(b), and 51.709(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, 51.703(b), and 51.709(b), Mountain's claim that Qwest's charges for transporting traffic to Mountain from Qwest's own customers are unlawful IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Formal Complaint, File No. EB-00-MD-017 (filed Sept. 12, 2000) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. � 208. See Mountain Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 355
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.pdf
  • in the hearing aid compatibility report to be prepared by Commission staff. See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comments on Topics to be Addressed in Hearing Aid Compatibility Report, WT Docket No. 06-203, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 13136 (2006). Formal complaints are filed pursuant to Section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 208, and are governed by Sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. Informal complaints are governed by Sections 1.716-1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.716-1.719. See 47 U.S.C. � 503. See 47 U.S.C. � 312(a). See 47 U.S.C. � 312(b). See Skype July 24 Ex Parte at 1-2 (requesting rule modifications so that complainants would be required to make only a prima
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1_Erratum.doc
  • in the hearing aid compatibility report to be prepared by Commission staff. See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comments on Topics to be Addressed in Hearing Aid Compatibility Report, WT Docket No. 06-203, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 13136 (2006). Formal complaints are filed pursuant to Section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 208, and are governed by Sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. Informal complaints are governed by Sections 1.716-1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.716-1.719. See 47 U.S.C. � 503. See 47 U.S.C. � 312(a). See 47 U.S.C. � 312(b). See Skype July 24 Ex Parte at 1-2 (requesting rule modifications so that complainants would be required to make only a prima
• 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
  • outstanding issues, we render moot APCC's otherwise compelling objection that the Petition improperly seeks interlocutory relief. See Opposition to Defendants' Petition for Reconsideration, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed Dec. 9, 2005) (``Opposition to Recon.'') at 6-7 (citing 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(a)(1) (stating that ``[p]etitions for reconsideration of ... interlocutory actions will not be entertained'')). 47 C.F.R. �� 1.716-1.718. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. 47 U.S.C. � 415(b). See, e.g., Operator Communications, Inc. v. Contel of the South, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19783, 19792 at � 23 (2005). 47 C.F.R. � 1.718 (stating, in pertinent part, that a formal complaint ``will be deemed to relate back to the filing date of the informal complaint: Provided, That the formal complaint: (a)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.txt
  • 1, 11-12. Farmers' Opening Brief at 2, 14. 47 C.F.R. � 1.725 (``Cross-complaints seeking any relief within the jurisdiction of the Commission against any carrier that is a party (complainant or defendant) to that proceeding are expressly prohibited. Any claim that might otherwise meet the requirements of a cross-complaint may be filed as a separate complaint in accordance with �� 1.720 through 1.736. For purposes of this subpart, the term `cross-complaint' shall include counterclaims.''). See U.S. Telepacific Corp. v. Tel-America of Salt Lake City, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24555-56, � 8 (2004) (citing ``long-standing Commission precedent'' holding that the Commission does not act as a collection agent for carriers with respect to unpaid tariffed charges, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.txt
  • request and prohibit it from acting in an unjust or unreasonable manner or otherwise favoring particular entities in the provision of ``like'' services provided to other entities. By virtue of the relief granted, AT&T may detariff the specified broadband services, but the Section 201 and 202 standards and the formal complaint process in Section 208 of the Act and Sections 1.720 through 1.735 of the Commission's rules will continue to apply to those service offerings. We expect that any complaint pertaining to services covered by this Order will be resolved within five months, as prescribed by Section 208 (b)(1) of the Act. We also find that continued application of our dominant carrier discontinuance rules to the AT&T-specified broadband services is not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.txt
  • prohibit them from acting in an unjust or unreasonable manner or otherwise favoring particular entities in the provision of ``like'' services provided to other entities. By virtue of the relief granted, Embarq and Frontier may detariff the specified broadband services, but the section 201 and 202 standards and the formal complaint process in section 208 of the Act and sections 1.720 through 1.735 of the Commission's rules will continue to apply to those service offerings. We expect that any complaint pertaining to services covered by this Order will be resolved within five months, as prescribed by section 208(b)(1) of the Act. We also find that continued application of our dominant carrier discontinuance rules to the petitioner-specified broadband services is not necessary
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-186A1.txt
  • 1.170 Conversation State X $ 1.210 Conversation State X $ 1.240 Conversation State X $ 1.240 Conversation State X $ 1.260 Conversation State X $ 1.295 Conversation State X $ 1.310 Conversation State X $ 1.350 Conversation State X $ 1.390 Conversation State X $ 1.400 Conversation State X $ 1.406 Conversation State X $ 1.420 Conversation State X $ 1.720 Conversation State X $ 1.890 Conversation * There are 52 entities listed, because one state changed providers and therefore rates, mid-year, and Puerto Rico is included. APPENDIX F APPENDIX G Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that "the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-221A1.txt
  • with the procedures described in this part shall be defined as prompt execution, without any unreasonable delay, of changes that have been verified by a submitting carrier.'') and 47 C.F.R. � 64.1100(b) (``A carrier may be treated as an executing carrier... if it is responsible for any unreasonable delays in the execution of carrier changes...''). See generally 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.735 (formal complaint rules). See also 47 U.S.C. � 208. See 47 U.S.C. � 3506(c)(4). (continued from previous page) (continued...) Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-221 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-221 h|K > K a d w � � '' � - � � � � � � � � ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( h|K h|K h|K h|K
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.txt
  • necessary to ensure that PSPs ``receive[] full compensation for this period.'' Nor does OCI identify any ``facts described by Verizon'' which would cause us to make an exception here. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, 276, and sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1301 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, 64.1301, that the above-captioned formal complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, 276, and sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1301 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.txt
  • compensation shall accrue interest at the rate of 11.25% per year. Defendants' asserted misunderstanding of the law cannot set aside a Commission rule in these circumstances. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, that APCC Services, Inc.'s claims against Intelligent Switching and Software, LLC under section 201(b) of the Act are GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, 276, and 416 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.txt
  • grant Complainants' claim under section 222(b) of the Act (i.e., Count I), and award the requested injunctive relief. Specifically, we hereby order Verizon to immediately cease and desist from engaging in the customer retention marketing activities described above. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 222, and 303(r) of the Act, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, that the Enforcement Bureau's April 11, 2008, Recommended Decision in File No. EB-08-MD-002 IS REJECTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 222, and 303(r) of the Act, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, that Count I of the Complaint is GRANTED, and that Counts II and III are DISMISSED without
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-167A1.txt
  • post changes in rates, terms and conditions before those changes are actually implemented, we deny CCMI's claims that the timing of AT&T's postings violates rule 42.10 and section 201(b). ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and sections 1.720-1.736, and 42.10 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, 42.10, that the formal complaint filed by the Center for Communications Management Information, Econobill Corporation, and On Line Marketing Inc. is DENIED, and this proceeding is hereby TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Formal Complaint of Center for Communications Management Information, Econobill Corporation, and On Line Marketing Inc.,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.txt
  • request and prohibit Qwest from acting in an unjust or unreasonable manner or otherwise favoring particular entities in the provision of ``like'' services provided to other entities. By virtue of the relief granted, Qwest may detariff the specified broadband services, but the section 201 and 202 standards and the formal complaint process in section 208 of the Act and sections 1.720 through 1.735 of the Commission's rules will continue to apply to those service offerings. We expect that any complaint pertaining to services covered by this Order will be resolved within five months, as prescribed by section 208(b)(1) of the Act. We also find that continued application of our dominant carrier discontinuance rules to the petitioner-specified broadband services is not necessary
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.txt
  • 24 FCC Rcd at 3808, � 5, n.12. North County makes the assertion in a single, unsupported footnote. See North County AFR at 8 n.30. MetroPCS did not make the assertion until its Response. See Metro Response at 4-5. Indeed, MetroPCS's Application refers to the traffic at issue as intrastate several times. See MetroPCS AFR at ii, 1, 17. Rule 1.720(c) provides: ``Facts must be supported by relevant documentation or affidavit.'' 47 C.F.R.� 1.720(c). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.721(a)(5), 1.724(g), 1.726(e), 1.732(b) (all requiring that factual assertions in formal complaint proceedings be supported by declarations and/or documents). Given the parties' failure to preserve or support their claim that there is any interstate traffic at issue here, we have no occasion in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-74A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-74A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-74A1.txt
  • simply recounts the events as to how the number was purportedly released. Without the opportunity to question witnesses to the event, Staton argues that the Bureau could not have decided whether MCI acted willfully or negligently. 9. Staton is incorrect that the testimony of live witnesses is necessary to resolve formal complaints such as Staton's. As set forth in section 1.720 of our rules, formal complaint proceedings, such as this one, ``are generally resolved on a written record consisting of a complaint, answer, and joint statement of stipulated facts, disputed facts and key legal issues, along with all associated affidavits, exhibits and other attachments.'' In American Message Centers v. FCC, the court, in endorsing the Commission's procedures governing formal complaints, stated:
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.txt
  • and issue pole attachment permits within specified time periods); Knology Comments at 20 (suggesting that the Commission modify the pole attachment rule governing Petitions for Temporary Stay so that they may be used in make-ready situations); T-Mobile Comments at 8-9 (proposing accelerated treatment of pole attachment disputes). National Broadband Plan at 112. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.418. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. 47 C.F.R. � 76.7; see also 47 C.F.R. � 76.1003 (program access complaints). Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 02-55, Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 14969, 14986, para. 27 (2004) (800 MHz Report and Order) (creating an independent third party responsible for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.txt
  • at 48. 47 U.S.C. � 618(a)(3)(A). 47 U.S.C. � 618(a). Accessibility NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 3200, Appendix B (setting forth proposed new rules 47 C.F.R. �� 14.30-14.52 - 8.37 entitled ``Subpart D - Recordkeeping, Consumer Dispute Assistance, and Enforcement''). These proposed rules were based in part on Commission formal complaint rules governing other subject matters. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720 - 1.736. Accessibility NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 3187, � 141. See Appendix B, �� 14.38-14.52. ITI Comments at 31 (arguing that the filing of an informal complaint should be a prerequisite to filing a formal complaint). See IT and Telecom RERCs Comments at 42 (such a requirement would ``further inhibit the formal complaint process''). See 47 U.S.C. � 618(a)(3)(A)
• 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
  • 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 relief
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.txt
  • Specifications as to pleadings and documents. * * * * * (f)(1) In the following types of proceedings, all pleadings, including permissible ex parte submissions, notices of ex parte presentations, comments, reply comments, and petitions for reconsideration and replies thereto, must be filed in electronic format: (i) Formal complaint proceedings under Section 208 of the Act and rules in �� 1.720 through 1.736, and pole attachment complaint proceedings under Section 224 of the Act and rules in �� 1.1401 through 1.1418; (ii) Proceedings, other than rulemaking proceedings, relating to customer proprietary network information (CPNI); (iii) Proceedings relating to cable special relief petitions; (iv) Proceedings involving Over-the-Air Reception Devices; and (v) Common carrier certifications under rule in � 54.314 of this chapter.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-37A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-37A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-37A1.txt
  • requirement. Similarly, as discussed more fully below, we seek comment on the extent to which we should retain or revise our current requirements under Section 255 governing formal complaints that are filed for alleged violations by manufacturers and providers under Sections 255, as well as Sections 716 and 718, in the future. At present, these procedures are consistent with sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules. If we make changes to facilitate the filing of informal complaints, but continue to apply our procedures for formal complaints largely in their current form to the new ACS sections (as well as maintain these procedures for Section 255), will this be enough to fulfill Congress's intent to facilitate the filing of complaints under these sections?
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-52A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-52A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-52A1.txt
  • the effectiveness of a roaming arrangement on the requesting provider's provision of mobile data service to its own subscribers using a generation of wireless technology comparable to the technology on which the requesting provider seeks to roam. (2) A party alleging a violation of this section may file a formal or informal complaint pursuant to the procedures in �� 1.716-1.718, 1.720, 1.721, and 1.723-1.735 of this chapter, which sections are incorporated herein. For purposes of section 20.12(e), references to a ``carrier'' or ``common carrier'' in the formal and informal complaint procedures incorporated herein will mean a provider of commercial mobile data services. The Commission will resolve such disputes on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances presented
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.txt
  • entitled. We therefore need not, and do not, reach the claims stated in the remaining counts of the Complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss these counts without prejudice. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 203, and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 201, 203, and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, that Counts III and IV of the Complaint are hereby GRANTED as to liability; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.txt
  • the existence of the Collection Action Orders, such orders were not addressed in either the Bureau or Commission decisions in that proceeding. We note that the Commission's rules require parties to formal complaint proceedings, among other things, to distinguish opposing legal authority and to ensure that relevant legal authorities are current and updated as necessary. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 1.720(e), (g). (continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-5 - � � � � \ � � 0 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.txt
  • Complaint, we need not and do not reach the merits of Count II of the Complaint, and we dismiss Count II of the Complaint without prejudice. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, that Count I of the Complaint is GRANTED to the extent described herein, and Count II of the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 47 U.S.C. � 208. See Formal Complaint of AT&T Texas, File No. EB-11-MD-008 (filed Sept. 9, 2011) (Complaint). See also Proposed Findings
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1_Rcd.pdf
  • (dismissing certain counts without prejudice because granting certain other counts alreadyafforded AT&T all of the relief to (continued...) 1743 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-19 IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 25. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, that Count I of the Complaint is GRANTED to the extent described herein, and Count II of the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary (Continued from previous page) which it could be entitled). In its Complaint, AT&T Texas purported to seek a "declar[ation] that any claim
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-401A1.pdf
  • when Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2614 (1993); Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. AT&T Communications, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 8130 (1989), aff'd sub nom. Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. FCC, 915 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 920 (1991). See generally 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.735. See, e.g., Sea Island Broadcasting Corp. of S.C. v. FCC, 627 F.2d 240, 243 (D.C. Cir. 1980); see also Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21,905, 22,068, para. 337 (1996); Bender v. Clark, 744 F.2d
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1997/fcc97248.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1997/fcc97248.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1997/fcc97248.wp
  • alternative verification procedures might be applied to PC-freeze solicitations. We encourage commenters to describe any benefits to consumers that might result from either such action. In particular, we seek comment on what practices would promote both competition Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-248 47 U.S.C. � 208; see also the Commission's rules governing Section 208 complaint proceedings, 47 C.F.R. 74 �� 1.720-1.735. 47 U.S.C. � 258(b). 75 The terms "properly authorized" and "preferred" may be used interchangeably throughout this rule making. 76 NPRM, 9 FCC Rcd at 6888. 77 1995 Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9579 (concluding that "the slammed consumer does receive a service, 78 even though the service is being provided by an unauthorized entity."). NAAG Petition at
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99119.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99119.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99119.wp
  • that "any person, any body politic or municipal organization, or State commission, complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier subject to this Act, in contravention of the provisions thereof, may apply to said Commission by petition. . . ." 199 The Commission's procedures for complaints involving common carriers are codified at 47 C.F.R. � 1.720, et seq. 200 See generally Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report & Order, CC Dkt. No. 96-238, 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997). Standing is not an issue for parties seeking redress for violations of the Act. 201 See Implementation of the Telecommunications
• 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
  • 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 groups to discuss the informal complaint process and identify improvements that will better e the needs of consumers and the industry. 277 See 47 C.F.R. 1.720; 47 U.S.C. 208. 278 See., e.g., NAD comments at 25-30; BellSouth comments at 16-17. Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-181 56 122. Content. Our objective is to make it easy for consumers with disabilities to file accessibility complaints and for manufacturers and service providers to move promptly to satisfy any meritorious complaints. A rule outlining the minimum information that must be
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.txt
  • by � 64.1100(e) of this part, has occurred using such proof and any evidence supplied by the subscriber. Failure by the carrier to respond or provide proof of verification will be presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Election of Forum. The Federal Communications Commission will not adjudicate a complaint filed pursuant to � 1.719 or �� 1.720-736, involving an alleged unauthorized change, as defined by � 64.1100(e) of this part, while a complaint based on the same set of facts is pending with a state commission. 7. Part 64, Subpart K, is further amended by adding section 64.1160 to read as follows: � 64.1160 Absolution Procedures Where the Subscriber Has Not Paid Charges This section shall only
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00400.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00400.txt
  • to relocate the demarcation point to the MPOE. The provider of wireline telecommunications services must negotiate terms in good faith and complete the relocation within forty-five days from said request. Premises owners may file complaints with the Commission for resolution of allegations of bad faith bargaining by provider of wireline telecommunications services. See 47 U.S.C. Section 208; 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.720-1.736 (1999). (4) The provider of wireline telecommunications services shall make available information on the location of the demarcation point within ten business days of a request from the premises owner. If the provider of wireline telecommunications services does not provide the information within that time, the premises owner may presume the demarcation point to be at the MPOE. Notwithstanding the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.txt
  • providers other than the incumbent LEC). Hyperion Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8613. MCI WorldCom, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 209 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Mandatory Detariffing Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 10181. Access Charge Reform Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 15982. Id. at 16140. Id. Id. Id. at 16140-41. Id. at 16141. Id. See generally 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.735 (Commission rules governing formal complaints); 47 U.S.C. � 208. Access Charge Reform Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16141. . MGC Communications, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 14 FCC Rcd 11647 (1999). Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. MGC Communications, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 14027 (2000). Total Tel. v. AT&T, FCC 01-84, File No. E-97-003 (rel. Mar. 13, 2001) (Total Tel. Order). 47
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/209968-1.pdf
  • the complainant the right to conduct discovery, NPRM � 147 n.260, is more "burdensome" on both the parties and the Commission than the informal process, id. � 146. In recognition of the added rights and burdens, the Commission traditionally required the complainant to plead formal complaints with "specificity" and to support all claims with affidavits and documentation. 47 C.F.R. � 1.720. In the NPRM, the FCC proposes to abandon these pleading requirements for Section 255 formal complaints, by allowing a complainant to move into formal proceedings at the end of the informal process, without re-filing a complaint. NPRM � 154. The FCC also proposes not to require its customary filing fee for Section 255 complaints against non-common carriers. Id. � 155.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210018-1.pdf
  • id. at ll 137. If the proposed "fast-track" process is unable to resolve the problem, the consumer will need to resort to the complaint procedures. There is no reason for the Commission to establish unique procedures for Section 255 complaints. The existing flexible informal complaint rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.716-718, and the new, streamlined formal complaint procedures, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-735, should allow for efficient resolution of accessibility complaints. The Commission should not adopt its proposal to eliminate all standing requirements for Section 255 complaints. See Notice at r[ 148. Instead, the Commission should prescribe minimal standing requirements - the complainant must be disabled or be represented by a public or private organization representing the disabled and assert that he or
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210021-1.pdf
  • does not satisfy the complaining party. 47 C.F.R.��1.716-718. 6. The Commission's rules governing formal complaints are structured to elicit full factual information and documents relevant to the positions of the parties, with limited and controlled discovery,a litigation status conference amongst the parties and the Commission's staff,and a briefing of the facts and the legal issues for agency decision. 47 C.F.R. ��1.720-735. These formal complaint rules are designed to deal with "technical" and "legal"arguments not susceptible to resolution bly an exchange of correspendence and oral communications. Surely no less than informal complaint rules,if not more so,these formal complaint :rules constitute an essential, integral part of the framework for implementing the statutory rights of citizens under Section 208 of the Act. 7. Formal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210069-1.pdf
  • comply with Section 255, but does not require them to assure accessibility characteristics of their underlying network equipment.Manufacturers should be obligated to assure that equipment (including software), through standard interfaces and signaling, allows service providers to maintain statutory compliance. l9 see* PRto RI= FvAre Filed_Bgainst n-1-q12 FCC Red 22497 (1997), erratum (released Dece&er 10,1997) ("Formal Complaint Orderfl) ;47 C.F.R. �� 1.720 usen. Because the Commission plans to act in a timely fashion to adopt such new procedures for handling Section 255 complaints,the NPRM properly concludes (11 175-177) that there is no need for the Commission to adopt interim rules for processing such complaints. 11 obviate the need for further Commission proceedings, the NPRM (11144-156) also proposes creation of a further round
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210087-2.pdf
  • fact 4'lmpEementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Access to Telecommunications Services, Telecommunications Equipment, and Customer Premises Equipment By Persons with Disabilities, Notice of Inquiry, WT Docket No. 96-198 (September 17, 1996) �36. 42 For example, no similar requirement for FCC approval exists with respect to formal complaints brought against common carriers under Section 208. 47 C.F.R. �1.720-1.735. 43 NPRM 7155 n. 276, citing Section 8(g) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. $158(g). 44 47 C.F.R. $1.1105. 36 discourage consumers from filing formal complaints; this in turn could undermine enforcement of the accessibility mandates. Thus, it is in the public interest for the Commission to waive the filing fee and we urge the Commission to take such action.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210097-1.pdf
  • for ADR of Section 255 complaints. However, TIA asserts that the use of ADR techniques should not be used for the first few years after final rules in this proceeding are adopted. The Commission correctly points out that ADR techniques are not necessarily appropriate in every case, specifically in (1) precedent setting cases; (2) cases bearing on 128 See � 1.720. 129 NPRM � 158. 96 significant new policy questions; (3) cases where maintaining established policies is of special importance; (4) cases significantly affecting persons or organizations who are not parties to the proceeding; (5) cases where a formal record is essential; and, (6) cases where the agency must maintain continuing jurisdiction with authority to alter its disposition in light of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/213340-1.pdf
  • because of the retailer's (often a mass merchandiser) conduct. 25 See United States Telephone Association Comments at 14 (I'Only customers of a service provider or manufacturer . . . should have standing to initiate a fast-track inquiry or an informal or formal complaint under Section 255.") 26 For instance,the Commission has procedures regarding bona fide complaints, see 47 C.F.R. � 1.720, and has the right to consolidate complaints involving the same issue, see 47 C.F.R. � 1.227(a) (providing for the consolidation of cases involving the same applicant or substantially the same issues in formal hearing proceedings). The Commission should afford the same protections here. 13 IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons,CTIA respectfully requests that the Commission adopt rules governing Section 255 consistent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.txt
  • a request from the premises owner to relocate the demarcation point to the MPOE. The telephone company must negotiate terms in good faith and complete the negotiations within forty-five days from said request. Premises owners may file complaints with the Commission for resolution of allegations of bad faith bargaining by telephone companies. See 47 U.S.C. Section 208; 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.720-1.736 (1999). (4) The telephone company shall make available information on the location of the demarcation point within ten business days of a request from the premises owner. If the telephone company does not provide the information within that time, the premises owner may presume the demarcation point to be at the MPOE. Notwithstanding the provisions of 47 U.S.C. � 68.110(c),
• http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/spanish/informalcomplaint.html http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/spanish/informalcomplaint.pdf
  • parte debe cumplir con las normas especficas del procedimiento, presentarse ante la FCC y presentar documentacin que trate los aspectos legales. Las partes involucradas en la queja normalmente son representadas por abogados o expertos en la ley de comunicaciones y las normas procesales de la FCC. Toda la informacin sobre este tipo de quejas la puede encontrar en las secciones 1.720 a la 1.735 de las normas de la FCC, localizadas en 47 C.F.R. 1.720- 1.735. Tambin puede visitar el sitio Web de la Oficina para el Cumplimiento de la Ley en [20]www.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/laction.html (en ingls). Quejas sobre el servicio telefnico local o cable Si tiene problemas con su servicio telefnico local, incluyendo la asistencia para directorios, o el servicio telefnico dentro
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/E911/e911.html
  • staff follows them carefully and enforces them. Failure to comply with the rules can result in dismissal of the complaint. You should feel free to contact the staff to discuss these procedures and ask any questions. The rules governing formal complaints (including the procedures governing the Accelerated Docket) are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.720-1.736 (1999). For additional information, you may want to look at the FCC's Report and Order that adopted these rules, which is published in the FCC Record at 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997). The specific rules governing the Accelerated Docket are published in the FCC Record at 13 FCC Rcd 17018 (1998). A filing fee is required for all formal complaints.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/LoTelComp/ltcoccmv.html
  • staff follows them carefully and enforces them. Failure to comply with the rules can result in dismissal of the complaint. You should feel free to contact the staff to discuss these procedures and ask any questions. The rules governing formal complaints (including the procedures governing the Accelerated Docket) are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at [20]47 C.F.R. Sections 1.720-1.736 (1999). For additional information, you may want to look at the FCC's Report and Order that adopted these rules, which is published in the FCC Record at [21]12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997). The specific rules governing the Accelerated Docket are published in the FCC Record at [22]13 FCC Rcd 17018 (1998). A filing fee is required for all formal complaints.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.html
  • Revised Complaint, File No. E-98-48 (filed Sept. 4, 1998), � 36. Complaint, File No. E-98-49 (filed July 15, 1998), � 32-33. The Defendants identify additional procedural deficiencies in Verizon's Supplemental Complaints and argue that the complaints should be dismissed or denied as a result. MCI Answer at 6-7, 13-15; Global Crossing Answer, Part III at 2-5. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.720 (establishing general pleading requirements); 47 C.F.R. � 1.721(a) (establishing rules for format and content of complaints); 47 C.F.R. � 1.722(c) (establishing rules for requests for damages). We agree that Commission staff should have directed Verizon to amend its pleadings to correct the deficiencies. However, because the deficiencies have not compromised the Defendants' ability to address the legal issues raised in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.html
  • theory, however. BTI Initial Brief at 14. BTI also contends that ACC charges AT&T the competing ILEC access rate rather than the tariffed rate. BTI Amended Answer to AT&T Second Amended Complaint, � 26. In any event, BTI's attempt to plead an estoppel defense in its Amended Answer does not comply with the Commission's rules, see 47 C.F.R. �� 1.724(b), 1.720(b), because BTI failed to cite any legal authority supporting the affirmative defense and failed to allege and provide evidentiary support for facts which, if true, would establish an estoppel defense. See BTI Amended Answer to AT&T Second Amended Complaint, � 70-71. See Bell Atlantic Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPS, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC No. 00-383, 2000 WL
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01238.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01238.html
  • to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 202(a), 208, 251(g), and 271 of Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 202(a), 208, 251(g), and 271, that the Formal Complaint filed by AT&T Corporation IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720 through 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, that AT&T's Motion to Strike, dated February 8, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary After AT&T filed this complaint, Bell Atlantic acquired NYNEX, which later merged with GTE to form Verizon Communications, Inc. Notwithstanding these corporate changes, for purposes of clarity this Order refers to the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1470A1.html
  • comply with the requirements set forth in section 1.722 of the Commission's rules.7 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS GRANTED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. These rules were promulgated to implement section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 276. 3 APCC Services, Inc.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1645A1.html
  • of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. The Commission promulgated these rules to implement section 276 of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1646A1.html
  • of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. The Commission promulgated these rules to implement section 276 of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1647A1.html
  • of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. The Commission promulgated these rules to implement section 276 of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2503A1.html
  • interest by eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the Commission. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. These rules were promulgated to implement section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 276. 3 See
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3222A1.html
  • and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3223A1.html
  • and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3414A1.html
  • Defendant. ) ) ORDER Adopted: December 12, 2002 Released: December 13, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 5, 2002, US LEC of Virginia, L.L.C. (``US LEC'') filed with this Commission a formal complaint against Verizon Virginia, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),1 and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules.2 The complaint alleges, among other things, that Verizon has unlawfully failed to fulfill its obligations under the parties' interconnection agreement to make payments relating to the exchange of certain traffic.3 Verizon filed its answer denying these obligations on September 25, 2002.4 On December 4, 2002, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Convert Case requesting that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3442A1.html
  • what these documents purport to be under the Commission's rules. Construing these documents most liberally in favor of DDA, we will assume that they were intended to be either applications for review of a Commission staff decision to close an informal complaint proceeding initiated by DDA pursuant to sections 1.711-1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 or formal complaints pursuant to sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules.4 In either situation, for the reasons described below, DDA's filings are patently meritless, almost to the point of being frivolous. 3. In 2001, DDA filed with the Commission an informal complaint against Verizon and SBC concerning essentially the same circumstances as those described in the documents filed by DDA in this matter.5 Both SBC and Verizon
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3547A1.html
  • supplemental complaint for damages. If Complainants decide to request such relief, they must explain the appropriateness of a particular interest rate, based upon past Commission precedent.31 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Complainants' motion for default judgment IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3584A1.html
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the above-captioned complaint filed by EarthLink, Inc. IS GRANTED in its entirety. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-144A1.html
  • 421, slip op. (N.D. Ohio May 30, 2000) (``District Court Order''), attached as Exhibit A to Answer. Almost eight months later, on January 24, 2001, Orloff filed a formal complaint with the Commission implementing the primary jurisdiction referral. However, because that complaint failed in numerous and significant respects to comply with the Commission's rules governing formal complaints, see 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, Commission staff dismissed the complaint without prejudice on February 1, 2001. See Letter from Alexander P. Starr, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Randy J. Hart and Mark Griffin, counsel for Orloff (dated Feb. 1, 2001). Over two months later, Orloff filed a new complaint, which is the subject of this Order. See Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Arising out
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-182A1.html
  • Amended Formal Complaint at 1. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 MCI WorldCom Answer at 17. 16 See American Message Centers v. FCC, 50 F.3d 35, 41 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citing Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed Where Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1806, 8 (1988)); see also 47 C.F.R. 1.720; Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed Where Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, 22508, 22 (1997) (stating that ``our ... objective is to improve the utility and content of pleadings, so that the complaint, answer, and any necessary reply may serve as the principal basis upon which the Commission will
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-186A1.html
  • (1998). 29 See AT&T Complaint at 11, 44; Beehive Answer at 7-8, 44; Beehive Initial Brief at 23-24; AT&T Initial Brief at 22. We note that AT&T failed to enter into the record section 2.6 of NECA Tariff F.C.C. No. 5. This did not violate any existing rule, however. At the time the complaint was filed in this proceeding, section 1.720(h) of the Commission's rules merely encouraged parties to provide copies of any relevant tariff provisions. 47 C.F.R. 1.720(h) (1996). This rule has since been revised to require that parties provide copies of relevant tariff provisions. 47 C.F.R. 1.720(h) (2001). 30 NECA Tariff F.C.C. No. 5, Section 2.6, Definitions, Access Minutes (emphasis added). Because neither party submitted into the record the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1050A1.html
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the parties' joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the above- captioned complaint filed IS GRANTED in its entirety. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1455A1.html
  • how Verizon's conduct could comply with section 251(c)(4), but still violate the reasonableness standard of sections 201(b)13 and 202(a).14 Given these circumstances, we deny Metro Teleconnect's Complaint in its entirety.15 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 208, and 251 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 208, 251, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720- 1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned formal complaint is DENIED, and this proceeding is hereby TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. See Formal Complaint, Metro Teleconnect Companies, Inc. v.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1930A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion for Dismissal of the above-captioned proceeding IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j),
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2101A1.html
  • jurisdiction over FDVS for the purpose of carrying out the Commission's statutory responsibilities.22 III. DISCUSSION 9. As a threshold matter, we must determine whether Staton's complaints comply with the filing requirements of the Act and the Commission's rules. Section 208 of the Act states that a complaint must be directed against ``any common carrier subject to this Act.''23 Further, section 1.720(b) of the Commission's rules states that a formal complaint ``must contain facts which, if true, are sufficient to constitute a violation of the Act or Commission order or regulation.''24 Section 1.721(a) of the Commission's rules states that a formal complaint shall contain a ``[c]itation to the section of the Communications Act and/or order and/or regulation of the Commission alleged to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-365A1.html
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 252(e)(5), and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the above-captioned complaint filed by Cox and Verizon South IS GRANTED in its entirety. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 252(e)(5) of the Communications
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4092A1.html
  • resolution of disputes and by postponing the need for further litigation and expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of this Commission until such time as may actually be necessary. In addition, the public interest will be served by affording KIS sufficient time to construct a formal complaint that complies with the Commission's rigorous rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, should such a complaint be necessary. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3 and 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.718, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-1A1.html
  • for CW USA and CW plc, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (rel. Sept. 25, 2001) (``Status Conference Order'') at 2, III.3, III.4; at 4, V.12, V.14. 27 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608, 18 & n.51. 28 Reconsideration Petition at 1, 9-13; Reconsideration Reply at 2-5. 29 Reconsideration Petition at 11. 30 Reconsideration Reply at 3. 31 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.733(a)(5); 1.720 (a); 1.732 (c), (d). 32 See Status Conference Order. 33 Reconsideration Petition at 10-11; Reconsideration Reply at 4. 34 Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, 22547, 115 (1997) (``Formal Complaints Order''). 35 Formal Complaints Order, 12
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-278A1.html
  • South's virtual NXX defense on its merits, we do not address the question of whether Starpower's complaint in the liability phase of this proceeding provided sufficient notice to Verizon South of Starpower's intent to collect compensation for virtual NXX calls that Verizon South should have raised its virtual NXX defense in its answer in the liability phase. See 47 C.F.R. 1.720(a) (``[a]ll matters concerning a . . . defense . . . should be pleaded fully and with specificity''); 1.724(b) (the defendant's answer ``shall advise the complainant and the Commission fully and completely of the nature of any defense, and shall respond specifically to all material allegations of the complaint''); Starpower's Reply to Verizon South's Answer, File No. EB-00-MD-19 (filed July
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-96A1.html
  • at 20-21. 113 Core also alleges that Verizon delayed unreasonably in building the entrance facility. Core's Initial Br. at 15- 20; Core's Reply Br. at 20-21. Yet, Core has failed to provide probative evidence supporting this allegation. Specifically, Core's Complaint provided no evidence to support its assertion. This failure, standing alone, could warrant disregard of Core's allegation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.720(c), 1.721 (a)(5), (a)(11). In any event, in subsequent briefing, Core relied on a single e-mail sent to Core by Verizon. Core's Initial Br. at 15-17 (citing Answer, Ex. 4 (Verizon e-mail to Core)). Yet this e-mail is reasonably read in the manner suggested by Verizon, see Verizon's Opp. Br. at 21, particularly given Core's failure to cite it until final
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1307A1.html
  • public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 6. 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, sections 1.720-1.729 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.729, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint, the Supplemental Complaint and the Petition ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and this proceeding is hereby terminated. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1339A1.html
  • 41 Joint Statement at 4, para. 2. 42 Letter from Walter Staton, Executive Vice President, Staton Wholesale to Lynn Vermillera and David Hunt, FCC, October 14, 2003 (``Staton Letter''). 43 See Motion of MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc to Strike, filed October 23, 2003. 44 See Staton's Opposition to Motion to Strike, filed October 29, 2003. 45 See generally 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736. Even if we had considered the letter, it does not add additional facts or issues that would change the outcome of this proceeding. The letter focuses mainly on Staton's speculation regarding potential motives MCI may have had to intentionally disconnect Staton from the All Eights Number. Staton does not, however, support its speculative theories with record evidence. 46 Joint Statement
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1604A1.html
  • public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.729 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720- 1.729, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1682A1.html
  • quarter for which dial-around compensation is being billed. The parties shall calculate the applicable interest using the base damages amounts set forth in section III.D, supra.68 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 23. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Complainants' Supplemental Complaint for Damages IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein as to Complainants APCC Services, Inc., Data Net Systems, LLC, and Intera Communications Corp. 24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1809A1.html
  • action within sixty (60) days after notice of termination or expiration of the automatic stay in Cable & Wireless' bankruptcy proceedings, rather than filing an entirely new formal complaint.12 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Qwest's and U.S. South's Joint Request for Dismissal With Prejudice as to U.S. South IS GRANTED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2078A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Madison River's and BellSouth's joint motion for dismissal with prejudice IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-259A1.html
  • Core; and fostering diligence in the discovery process and respect for the Commission's complaint processes as a whole. Accordingly, we deny Verizon's request to admit the Documents into the record. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 15. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Documents may not be entered into the record of this proceeding, and that Verizon's Answer is stricken. Commission staff will promptly issue a schedule for further actions to be taken in this proceeding.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2865A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2866A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2972A1.html
  • and by postponing the need for litigation and expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of this Commission until such time as may actually be necessary. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716- 18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Request to Convert IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3265A1.html
  • of Anchorage, Inc., d/b/a Alaska Communications Systems, ACS Local Service, and ACS; ACS of Fairbanks, d/b/a Alaska Communications Systems, ACS Local Service, and ACS; and ACS of Alaska, Inc., d/b/a Alaska Communications Systems, ACS Local Service, and ACS (collectively ``ACS''), pursuant to sections 201, 202, 251, and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),1 and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules.2 The complaint alleges, among other things, that ACS has failed to comply with the Act and the Commission's rules requiring the non-discriminatory provisioning of unbundled network elements and telecommunications services for resale.3 In December 2003, the parties jointly requested that the Commission defer establishing a further schedule in this proceeding, because they were actively engaged in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3476A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3477A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3569A1.html
  • and 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727, Verizon's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Defer, is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. 29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, Broadview's formal complaint of December 30, 2003 SHALL BE CONVERTED into an informal complaint with a designated filing date of December 30, 2003, and that the formal complaint and answer filed in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-753A1.html
  • 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 to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice the Complaint against the Remaining Defendants IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1972A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b) and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1974A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b) and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1975A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b) and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1976A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b) and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2214A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Formal Complaint, File No. EB-05-MD-005 (filed
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2655A1.html
  • at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-265A1.html
  • we to rule in their favor on this remaining claim. Accordingly, we need not address this claim, and we hereby dismiss it without prejudice. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated pursuant to sections 0.111 and 0.131 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.131, that Complainants' claims under sections 201(b) and 276 of the Act are GRANTED. 29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 416 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3072A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaints ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in their entirety and the proceedings ARE TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b) and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-435A1.html
  • the parties to proceed with mediation, instead of a formal complaint proceeding, at the present time.1 Accordingly, we hereby GRANT the complainants' request to withdraw this complaint without prejudice and TERMINATE this proceeding. 2. This Order is issued pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.722, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr, Division Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Law Offices BLOOSTON, MORDKOFSKY, DICKENS, DUFFY & PRENDERGAST 2120 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 AFFILIATED SOUTH AMERICAN OFFICES ESTUDIO JAUREGUI &
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-64A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 11 Formal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-674A1.html
  • informal complaints into formal complaints to minimize the burden and expense on all parties and the Commission.23 First, pursuant to section 1.722(c) of the Commission's rules,24 we will bifurcate complaint proceedings and determine damages in a separate proceeding.25 Therefore, the issue of damages should not be addressed in either the complaint or answer. Second, we waive the requirements in sections 1.720-1.723 of the Commission's rules26 setting forth the requirements for filing formal complaints, except as follows: 13. 1.721(a)(1) A formal complaint shall contain the name of each complainant and defendant; 14. 1.721(a)(2) The occupation, address and telephone number of each complainant and, to the extent known, each defendant. 15. 1.721(a)(3) The name, address and telephone number of complainant's attorney, if represented
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-207A1.html
  • . . .''). 40 Specifically, in one of its filings in the Notice-and-Comment Proceeding, Verizon stated: ``[I]f [OCI] truly believes the [PICC] charge is unlawful, it may file a complaint.'' Joint Statement Exhibit JS-21 (Bell Atlantic Opposition to Oncor Motion for Interim Relief, dated June 25, 1999) at 1. 41 OCI Brief at 14-15, n.6. 42 For example, 47 C.F.R. 1.720(b)-(d) and 1.721(a)(5)-(6) required OCI to set forth in its Formal Complaint all the facts and legal analyses upon which the claims are based. 43 See Formal Complaint Exhibit 10, Attachment C, at 1. 44 See Formal Complaint Exhibit 10, Attachment D, at 2. 45 See Joint Statement Exhibit JS-21 at 1. 46 See generally Cablevision v. New York Tel, 46
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-119A1.html
  • promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division _________________________ 1 Letter to Lisa B. Griffin and Anthony J. DeLaurentis, FCC, from Frank G. Lamancusa, counsel for GCI, and James F. Bendernagel, Jr., counsel for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1424A1.html
  • 14-15. 15. We find that there is no remaining dispute in this case, and no requested relief remaining for us to grant. Accordingly, we dismiss the Complaint as moot. IV. Ordering Clause 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 254(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111 and 0.311, that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as moot, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Complaint,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2467A1.html
  • and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736, 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 Western Payphone Systems Formal Complaint for Payphone Compensation, File No. EB-06-MD-009 (filed Sept. 21, 2006) ("Complaint"). Motion to Dismiss, File No. EB-06-MD-009 (filed
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-520A1.html
  • concurrent jurisdiction over the issues in dispute in this proceeding, and our order of dismissal should not be construed as agreeing or disagreeing with Momentum's assertion. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. SS 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208 and 271, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Motion to Withdraw, File No. EB-05-MD-029 (filed Mar. 2, 2006) ("Motion"). Formal Complaint, File No. EB-05-MD-029 (filed Nov. 21, 2005) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C. SS 208
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-65A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 11
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-66A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 11
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-68A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 11
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-69A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 11
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-70A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 11
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-71A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 11
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-817A1.html
  • promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-818A1.html
  • promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-139A1.html
  • immediately two motions related to Network's statute of limitations defense. Consequently, we deny Network's application for review and affirm the Bureau Liability Order. I. Ordering Clause 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and 276, and sections 1.115, 1.720-1.736, and 64.1300 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.115, 1.720-1.736, and 64.1300, that Network's Application for Review IS DENIED, APCC's motion to strike IS DISMISSED as moot, and the Bureau Liability Order IS AFFIRMED to the extent described herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Application for Review, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed Mar. 1, 2005) ("Application"). 47 C.F.R.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-147A1.html
  • an arrangement, we conclude, consistent with the D.C. Circuit's reasoning, that Qwest's charges for transporting one-way paging telecommunications traffic to Mountain from Qwest's own customers are unlawful. IV. Ordering Clause 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736, 51.703(b), and 51.709(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.720-1.736, 51.703(b), and 51.709(b), Mountain's claim that Qwest's charges for transporting traffic to Mountain from Qwest's own customers are unlawful IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Formal Complaint, File No. EB-00-MD-017 (filed Sept. 12, 2000) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C. S 208. See Mountain Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 355
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2079A1.html
  • * REDACTED * * * ]. In turn, the record does not demonstrate that federal case law supports Network's request for a stay absent a pledge of security for the full judgment amount. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, that Network's Motion to Stay the Damages Order IS DENIED, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Network's Motion for Leave to File a Reply IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2150A1.html
  • at 10-11, P 34. Salsgiver Telecom also asserted a request for damages, citing SS 206-209 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. SS 206-209. Complaint at 8-9, P 29. It did not, however, offer proof of any alleged damages, nor did it comply with the Commission's rules for bringing complaints for damages under sections 206-208 of the Act. See 47 C.F.R. SS 1.720 - 1.736. As a result of these deficiencies, we are unable to assess the merits of Salsgiver Telecom's request for damages and therefore deny it. Complaint at 7-9, PP 24-30. See Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C. v. North Pittsburgh Tel. Co., File No. EB-05-MD-014 (Complaint filed July 8, 2005); DQE Communications Network Servs. v. North Pittsburgh Tel. Co., File No. EB-05-MD-027
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-667A1.html
  • As part of this review, the Commission sought recommendations from the public concerning whether these rules and procedures should be modified or eliminated. II. SCOPE OF REVIEW 2. The Commission identified the following rule parts containing regulations administered by the Enforcement Bureau for review and comment in the Public Notice: Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 and 1.720 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of formal complaints against common carriers. Sections 1.80 and 1.89 of the Commission's rules address forfeiture proceedings and penalties and Notice of Violations proceedings. Increased competition in the marketplace does not diminish the need for these rules, and thus we do not find that they are no longer necessary in the public
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-14A1.html
  • outstanding issues, we render moot APCC's otherwise compelling objection that the Petition improperly seeks interlocutory relief. See Opposition to Defendants' Petition for Reconsideration, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed Dec. 9, 2005) ("Opposition to Recon.") at 6-7 (citing 47 C.F.R. S 1.106(a)(1) (stating that "[p]etitions for reconsideration of ... interlocutory actions will not be entertained")). 47 C.F.R. SS 1.716-1.718. 47 C.F.R. SS 1.720-1.736. 47 U.S.C. S 415(b). See, e.g., Operator Communications, Inc. v. Contel of the South, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19783, 19792 at P 23 (2005). 47 C.F.R. S 1.718 (stating, in pertinent part, that a formal complaint "will be deemed to relate back to the filing date of the informal complaint: Provided, That the formal complaint: (a)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-175A1.html
  • 1, 11-12. Farmers' Opening Brief at 2, 14. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.725 ("Cross-complaints seeking any relief within the jurisdiction of the Commission against any carrier that is a party (complainant or defendant) to that proceeding are expressly prohibited. Any claim that might otherwise meet the requirements of a cross-complaint may be filed as a separate complaint in accordance with S:S: 1.720 through 1.736. For purposes of this subpart, the term `cross-complaint' shall include counterclaims."). See U.S. Telepacific Corp. v. Tel-America of Salt Lake City, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24555-56, P: 8 (2004) (citing "long-standing Commission precedent" holding that the Commission does not act as a collection agent for carriers with respect to unpaid tariffed charges, and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1205A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1366A1.html
  • 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., Application
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2472A1.html
  • public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that NewSouth's Complaint against BellSouth in the above-captioned proceeding IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau As a result of transactions consummated in 2004,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2700A1.html
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint of Verizon, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed July 25,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-424A1.html
  • 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 Sess.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-425A1.html
  • 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 Sess.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-426A1.html
  • 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, 97th
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-525A1.html
  • 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. 51
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-526A1.html
  • 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. 2d
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-778A1.html
  • is dispositive of this issue, we also note that DeMoss has failed to submit documentation in support of this claim. DeMoss references selected portions of Sprint's FCC Tariff No. 1, section 2.3.1(A), and selected portions of the Industry Guidelines for Toll-Free Number Administration, but he fails to present these documents as a part of the record, in accordance with sections 1.720(f) and (h), and 1.721(a)(11) of the Commission's rules. D. Remedies 1. Whether Equity Requires the Return of the AMERICA Toll-Free Numbers to DeMoss 31. In seeking equitable relief, DeMoss asks that we order Sprint to reinstate the AMERICA toll-free numbers to him. The relief that DeMoss seeks, however, obviously cannot be granted without causing harm to the current user of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-860A1.html
  • that the Commission seek comment on whether it should require (as it already does in the voice context) that any service provider accept a cancellation request from a customer's authorized agent. IV. Conclusion and REcommendationS 35. In sum, for all of the foregoing reasons, and pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 222, and 303(r) of the Act, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, we recommend that the Commission (i) DENY Complainants' claim (i.e., Count I) that Verizon's customer retention marketing practices violate section 222(b) of the Act; and (ii) DENY Complainants' claim (i.e., Count II) that Verizon's customer retention marketing practices violate section 222(a) of the Act. Complainants' claim (i.e., Count III) that Verizon's customer retention marketing practices violate
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-07-227A1.html
  • to ensure that PSPs "receive[] full compensation for this period." Nor does OCI identify any "facts described by Verizon" which would cause us to make an exception here. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 22. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, 276, and sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1301 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, 64.1301, that the above-captioned formal complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. 23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, 276, and sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1301 of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-131A1.html
  • accrue interest at the rate of 11.25% per year. Defendants' asserted misunderstanding of the law cannot set aside a Commission rule in these circumstances. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 35. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, that APCC Services, Inc.'s claims against Intelligent Switching and Software, LLC under section 201(b) of the Act are GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. 36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, 276, and 416 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-159A1.html
  • Complainants' claim under section 222(b) of the Act (i.e., Count I), and award the requested injunctive relief. Specifically, we hereby order Verizon to immediately cease and desist from engaging in the customer retention marketing activities described above. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 46. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 222, and 303(r) of the Act, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, that the Enforcement Bureau's April 11, 2008, Recommended Decision in File No. EB-08-MD-002 IS REJECTED. 47. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 222, and 303(r) of the Act, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, that Count I of the Complaint is GRANTED, and that Counts II and III are DISMISSED
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-167A1.html
  • in rates, terms and conditions before those changes are actually implemented, we deny CCMI's claims that the timing of AT&T's postings violates rule 42.10 and section 201(b). V. ORDERING CLAUSE 30. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and sections 1.720-1.736, and 42.10 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, 42.10, that the formal complaint filed by the Center for Communications Management Information, Econobill Corporation, and On Line Marketing Inc. is DENIED, and this proceeding is hereby TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Formal Complaint of Center for Communications Management Information, Econobill Corporation, and On Line Marketing Inc.,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1065A1.html
  • 415 claims are thus not supported by either the statutory language or the purpose of the statutory provision. We therefore deny Counts XXII and XXIII of MAP's Complaint. IV. ordering clauses 48. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111 and 0.311, that SBC Communications, Inc., Ameritech Corporation, Pacific Bell Communications, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. are hereby DISMISSED as parties, without prejudice. 49. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1086A1.html
  • that dismissing the Complaint with prejudice will serve the public interest by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111 and 0.311, that CassTel's Motion to Dismiss IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alex Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 1
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1508A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111 and 0.311, that the Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to defendants Matrix Management, Inc. and ZCom Networks, Inc., and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED as to defendants Matrix Management,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1580A1.html
  • 3. We are satisfied that dismissing the Petition with prejudice will serve the public interest by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 1.106, 1.720 - 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.106, 1.720 - 1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that MAP Mobile Communications, Inc.'s Notice of Settlement and Request for Dismissal of Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED and its Petition for Partial Reconsideration or Clarification is hereby DISMISSED
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1803A1.html
  • with prejudice will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of the dispute between APCC and CNS and by eliminating the need for further litigation as between these two parties. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion to Dismiss CCI Network Services, Inc. is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to defendant CCI Network Services, Inc., and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED as to defendant CCI
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1983A1.html
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes, and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111 and 0.311, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 1 Formal Complaint, File No. EB-09-MD-002 (filed
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2028A1.html
  • Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 8, 2009, the above-named complainant ("APCC Services") filed with this Commission a formal complaint against Dollar Phone Corp., RespOrgUSA, Inc., Dollar Phone Access, Inc., Dollar Phone Enterprise, Inc., Dollar Phone Services, Inc., and Global Switching, Inc., ("Defendants") pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and section 1.720 et seq. of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants violated sections 201(b) and 276(b) of the Act and sections 64.1300 and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules by failing to pay dial-around compensation to payphone service providers represented by APCC Services. On July 16, 2009, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint and in which they denied
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2040A1.html
  • need for the expenditure of further time and resources by the Commission, and by affording Pulsar certainty about the status of the claims against it. Ordering Clause 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S:
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2191A1.html
  • will serve the public interest by eliminating the need for the expenditure of further time and resources by the Commission, and by affording the parties certainty about the status of this proceeding. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to defendants Network Management, Inc. and USP Communications, Inc., and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-755A1.html
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes, and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111 and 0.311, that the July 2008 and March 2009 Motions ARE GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief, Market Disputes
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-100A1.html
  • 24 FCC Rcd at 3808, P: 5, n.12. North County makes the assertion in a single, unsupported footnote. See North County AFR at 8 n.30. MetroPCS did not make the assertion until its Response. See Metro Response at 4-5. Indeed, MetroPCS's Application refers to the traffic at issue as intrastate several times. See MetroPCS AFR at ii, 1, 17. Rule 1.720(c) provides: "Facts must be supported by relevant documentation or affidavit." 47 C.F.R.S: 1.720(c). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.721(a)(5), 1.724(g), 1.726(e), 1.732(b) (all requiring that factual assertions in formal complaint proceedings be supported by declarations and/or documents). Given the parties' failure to preserve or support their claim that there is any interstate traffic at issue here, we have no occasion in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1192A1.html
  • authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111 and 0.311, that the Request for Resolution on the Pleadings IS GRANTED. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 209, and sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111 and 0.311, that the Formal Complaint IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein, and is otherwise denied. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 209
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-477A1.html
  • when Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2614 (1993); Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. AT&T Communications, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 8130 (1989), aff'd sub nom. Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. FCC, 915 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 920 (1991). See generally 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.735. The parties agree that Smith subscribed to Sprint as his long distance carrier at the time he received these messages on his residential phone line. Defendants' Response to Staff's Request at 5. Verizon further states that it takes Verizon's systems longer to update non-marketing, non-sales lists as opposed to messages used as a part of a marketing or sales campaign
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-74A1.html
  • simply recounts the events as to how the number was purportedly released. Without the opportunity to question witnesses to the event, Staton argues that the Bureau could not have decided whether MCI acted willfully or negligently. 9. Staton is incorrect that the testimony of live witnesses is necessary to resolve formal complaints such as Staton's. As set forth in section 1.720 of our rules, formal complaint proceedings, such as this one, "are generally resolved on a written record consisting of a complaint, answer, and joint statement of stipulated facts, disputed facts and key legal issues, along with all associated affidavits, exhibits and other attachments." In American Message Centers v. FCC, the court, in endorsing the Commission's procedures governing formal complaints, stated:
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-59A1.html
  • therefore need not, and do not, reach the claims stated in the remaining counts of the Complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss these counts without prejudice. V. ordering clauses 54. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 203, and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 201, 203, and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, that Counts III and IV of the Complaint are hereby GRANTED as to liability; and 55. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S:
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-5A1.html
  • the existence of the Collection Action Orders, such orders were not addressed in either the Bureau or Commission decisions in that proceeding. We note that the Commission's rules require parties to formal complaint proceedings, among other things, to distinguish opposing legal authority and to ensure that relevant legal authorities are current and updated as necessary. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. S: 1.720(e), (g). (continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-5 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-5 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.doc
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-19A1.html
  • need not and do not reach the merits of Count II of the Complaint, and we dismiss Count II of the Complaint without prejudice. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 25. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, that Count I of the Complaint is GRANTED to the extent described herein, and Count II of the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 47 U.S.C. S: 208. See Formal Complaint of AT&T Texas, File No. EB-11-MD-008 (filed Sept. 9, 2011) (Complaint). See also Proposed Findings
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00898cd.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00898cd.txt
  • carrier to a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') requesting a change of a customer's primary interexchange and/or intraLATA carrier (``PIC''); ``Letter of Agency'' or ``LOA'' means a written authorization signed by the customer authorizing a PIC change; ``Informal Complaint'' or ``Customer Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 C.F.R. �� 1.711-1.717. ``Formal Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.735. 4. The Parties agree that the provisions of this voluntary Consent Decree shall be subject to final approval by the Bureau by incorporation of such provisions by reference in an Adopting Order of the Bureau. 5. The Parties agree that this Consent Decree shall become effective on the date on which the Bureau releases the Adopting Order. Upon release, the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-02-293A1.html
  • 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 47 C.F.R. 1.720 - 1.736. In this regard, complainants must attach a copy of the underlying informal complaint to the formal complaint being filed. 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.718. See also Informal Complaints Filed By Independent Payphone Service Providers Against Various Local Exchange Carriers Seeking Refunds of End User Common Line Charges, File No. 89-170, DA 99-1858,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-967A1.html
  • complaints. For further information, contact the Enforcement Bureau at 202-418-7330. Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, FCC 11-16, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1594 (2011) ("Part 1 Order"). Id. at P: P: 10, 15. Id. at P: 10. Id. at P: 15. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418. Note that these new rules do not affect existing section 208 formal complaints or existing section 224 pole attachment complaints. They also do not concern carrier-to-carrier informal complaints. See Id. at Appendix A, (listing new rule S:1.49(f)(1)(i) that requires "[f]ormal complaint proceedings under Section 208 . . . " to be filed electronically and excluding informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/rules/1730.html
  • rule below at another source, such as the web site of the Government Printing Office, [1]http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html. Sec. 1.730 The Enforcement Bureau's Accelerated Docket. (a) Parties to formal complaint proceedings against common carriers within the responsibility of the Enforcement Bureau (see Secs. 0.111, 0.311, 0.314 of this chapter) may request inclusion on the Bureau's Accelerated Docket. As set out in Secs. 1.720 through 1.736, proceedings on the Accelerated Docket are subject to shorter pleading deadlines and certain other procedural rules that do not apply to other formal complaint proceedings before the Enforcement Bureau. (b) Any party that contemplates filing a formal complaint may submit a request to the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau's Market Disputes Resolution Division, either by phone or in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/sed/PSGuide.html
  • carefully and enforces them. Failure to comply with the rules can result in dismissal of a complaint. Feel free to contact the Market Disputes Resolution Division staff to discuss these procedures and ask any questions. The rules governing formal Section 208 complaints (including the procedures governing the Accelerated Docket) are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736 (2001). For additional information, you may want to look at the FCC's Report and Order that adopted these rules, which is published at 12 FCC Rcd 22,497 (1997) and Order on Reconsideration which is published at 16 FCC Rcd 5681 (2001). The order adopting the Accelerated Docket rule is published at 13 FCC Rcd 17,018 (1998). A filing fee is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/laction.html
  • unlawful action. Because the Commission resolves this type of complaint in a manner similar to a court proceeding, we strongly encourage consumers to seek the advice of legal counsel before filing an action. Typically, corporations file this type of legal action against telecommunications carriers. The rules governing the filing of this type of legal action can be found in sections 1.720-1.736 of the FCC's rules. 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736. last reviewed/updated on Thu Jan 14 08:37:32 EST 2010 __________________________________________________________________ [18]Skip Bottom FCC Navigation Links and Contact Info [19]FCC Home | [20]Search | [21]RSS | [22]Updates | [23]E-Filing | [24]Initiatives | [25]Consumers | [26]Find People __________________________________________________________________ [27]Skip FCC Footer and Contact Info Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 [28]More
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fees/2000ccbguide.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fees/2000ccbguide.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/fees/2000ccbguide.txt
  • AUTHORIZATIONS, ACCOUNTING RULES, COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS. THE AGENCY ALSO ALLOCATES RADIO SPECTRUM AND ORBITAL SLOTS FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF COMMON CARRIER SERVICES. FORMAL COMPLAINTS A FORMAL COMPLAINT IS AN ALLEGATION OF A VIOLATION OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND/OR A COMMISSION ORDER OR REGULATION. A FORMAL COMPLAINT IS FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 208 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTION 1.720, et. seq., OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT (CALEA) SECTION 302 OF CALEA, PUB. L. NO. 103-414, 108 STAT. 4279 (1994), MODIFIES THE FEE IN SECTION 8(G) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 47 U.S.C. � 158(G): ``. . . UNDER ITEM 1 OF THE MATTER PERTAINING TO COMMON CARRIER SERVICES UNDER SUBITEM: (D). PROCEEDING SECTION
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1997/fcc97248.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1997/fcc97248.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1997/fcc97248.wp
  • alternative verification procedures might be applied to PC-freeze solicitations. We encourage commenters to describe any benefits to consumers that might result from either such action. In particular, we seek comment on what practices would promote both competition Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-248 47 U.S.C. � 208; see also the Commission's rules governing Section 208 complaint proceedings, 47 C.F.R. 74 �� 1.720-1.735. 47 U.S.C. � 258(b). 75 The terms "properly authorized" and "preferred" may be used interchangeably throughout this rule making. 76 NPRM, 9 FCC Rcd at 6888. 77 1995 Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9579 (concluding that "the slammed consumer does receive a service, 78 even though the service is being provided by an unauthorized entity."). NAAG Petition at
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99119.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99119.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99119.wp
  • that "any person, any body politic or municipal organization, or State commission, complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier subject to this Act, in contravention of the provisions thereof, may apply to said Commission by petition. . . ." 199 The Commission's procedures for complaints involving common carriers are codified at 47 C.F.R. � 1.720, et seq. 200 See generally Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report & Order, CC Dkt. No. 96-238, 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997). Standing is not an issue for parties seeking redress for violations of the Act. 201 See Implementation of the Telecommunications
• 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
  • 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 groups to discuss the informal complaint process and identify improvements that will better e the needs of consumers and the industry. 277 See 47 C.F.R. 1.720; 47 U.S.C. 208. 278 See., e.g., NAD comments at 25-30; BellSouth comments at 16-17. Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-181 56 122. Content. Our objective is to make it easy for consumers with disabilities to file accessibility complaints and for manufacturers and service providers to move promptly to satisfy any meritorious complaints. A rule outlining the minimum information that must be
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002118.doc
  • parties to contact the Market Disputes Resolution Division of the Enforcement Bureau before filing to discuss how the issue might best be handled. III. CONCLUSION 7. For the foregoing reasons, we grant Cox's Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction over its complaint against GTE and invite Cox to file for resolution of its dispute with GTE under 47 C.F.R. � 1.720 et seq. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.291 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. � 252 and 47 C.F.R. � 0.291 and � 51.801(b), the Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by Starpower Communications, LLC on March 16, 2000,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.txt
  • by � 64.1100(e) of this part, has occurred using such proof and any evidence supplied by the subscriber. Failure by the carrier to respond or provide proof of verification will be presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Election of Forum. The Federal Communications Commission will not adjudicate a complaint filed pursuant to � 1.719 or �� 1.720-736, involving an alleged unauthorized change, as defined by � 64.1100(e) of this part, while a complaint based on the same set of facts is pending with a state commission. 7. Part 64, Subpart K, is further amended by adding section 64.1160 to read as follows: � 64.1160 Absolution Procedures Where the Subscriber Has Not Paid Charges This section shall only
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00216.doc
  • proceeding and any judicial review of such findings shall be the exclusive remedies available to the parties. III. CONCLUSION 10. For the foregoing reasons, we grant Starpower's Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction over its complaints against Bell Atlantic and GTE and invite Starpower to file for resolution of its disputes with Bell Atlantic and GTE under 47 C.F.R. � 1.720 et seq. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. � 252 and 47 C.F.R. � 51.801(b), the Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by Starpower Communications, LLC on March 16, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00400.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00400.txt
  • to relocate the demarcation point to the MPOE. The provider of wireline telecommunications services must negotiate terms in good faith and complete the relocation within forty-five days from said request. Premises owners may file complaints with the Commission for resolution of allegations of bad faith bargaining by provider of wireline telecommunications services. See 47 U.S.C. Section 208; 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.720-1.736 (1999). (4) The provider of wireline telecommunications services shall make available information on the location of the demarcation point within ten business days of a request from the premises owner. If the provider of wireline telecommunications services does not provide the information within that time, the premises owner may presume the demarcation point to be at the MPOE. Notwithstanding the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.txt
  • providers other than the incumbent LEC). Hyperion Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8613. MCI WorldCom, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 209 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Mandatory Detariffing Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 10181. Access Charge Reform Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 15982. Id. at 16140. Id. Id. Id. at 16140-41. Id. at 16141. Id. See generally 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.735 (Commission rules governing formal complaints); 47 U.S.C. � 208. Access Charge Reform Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16141. . MGC Communications, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 14 FCC Rcd 11647 (1999). Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. MGC Communications, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 14027 (2000). Total Tel. v. AT&T, FCC 01-84, File No. E-97-003 (rel. Mar. 13, 2001) (Total Tel. Order). 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-98.pdf
  • 8.0 0.060.3 Korea, South $308,927,19249.1 0.334.612.6 3.4 $96,701,47442.2 0.038.714.5 4.6 $3,370,38844.5 0.047.6 5.7 2.1 603,879,45141.7 0.935.715.2 6.5 Laos $1,988,26624.8 1.024.715.234.4 $16,348 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.099.8 $48,87999.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 1,544,967 9.7 1.823.8 8.756.0 Macau $3,751,36659.0 0.824.810.3 5.1 $870,38253.4 0.028.710.1 7.7 $196,58380.8 0.0 2.615.7 0.9 5,630,85059.6 1.619.410.2 9.2 Malaysia $63,719,65949.4 0.728.9 8.712.2 $9,057,99845.0 0.029.011.414.6 $3,696,99691.9 0.0 4.1 1.0 3.0 128,809,49634.9 1.720.8 9.433.2 Maldives $302,371 3.430.439.9 6.819.5 $16,713 0.0 0.015.1 0.084.9 $124,28696.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 386,341 1.539.931.9 3.523.1 Mongolia $2,499,18069.6 0.7 9.9 4.115.7 $388,01298.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 $395,13299.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1,749,25064.4 1.3 5.9 3.225.3 Nepal $10,015,17459.5 0.2 4.710.724.9 $727,80392.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.3 $1,280,29399.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 10,463,47846.6 0.2 4.110.139.0 Pakistan $210,173,69657.2 6.520.011.0 5.2 $10,873,74748.0 0.010.610.431.1 $9,968,56796.9
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-f02.pdf
  • Receipts Percent share by carrier Receipts Percent share by carrier Total Percent share by carrier revenues 1 2 3 4 Other from PTT 1 2 3 4 Other from PTT 1 2 3 4 Other Minutes 1 2 3 4 Other Guyana $25,832,03241.9 9.4 0.346.7 1.7 $2,135,49611.4 0.0 0.088.4 0.1 $288,61215.4 0.1 0.281.5 2.8 79,267,59412.3 2.8 0.482.5 1.9 Paraguay $6,383,67754.918.6 1.720.3 4.4 $463,72953.316.0 0.030.7 0.0 $93,26617.310.821.150.8 0.0 24,833,42540.718.9 2.930.4 7.1 Peru $30,095,93916.627.5 3.744.9 7.2 $2,076,65147.513.7 0.034.5 4.4 $390,16910.0 1.240.418.629.9 184,472,57514.625.4 5.139.515.3 Suriname $11,549,15876.4 0.5 0.221.7 1.2 $3,695,32691.2 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 $90,74895.2 0.2 1.0 3.6 0.0 29,073,35281.3 0.5 0.216.4 1.6 Uruguay $12,169,36857.716.9 1.218.1 6.1 $849,27247.813.7 0.036.6 1.9 $173,77586.0 3.3 0.0 4.4 6.4 51,506,95649.419.4 1.620.8 8.8 Venezuela $42,846,03039.724.5 1.928.1 5.8 $1,236,29812.927.7 0.049.510.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-f99.pdf
  • $76,019,97649.734.010.9 0.5 5.0 $4,412,48057.630.510.6 0.0 1.3 $763,19719.975.6 4.4 0.0 0.0 179,985,31933.925.911.1 2.726.4 Cyprus $11,531,61550.427.912.9 0.5 8.2 $1,577,25043.422.910.5 0.023.2 $39,12022.940.037.1 0.0 0.0 22,880,48131.716.624.4 1.625.7 Denmark $32,113,95550.430.211.2 1.0 7.2 $2,217,94534.942.016.4 0.0 6.7 $450,20942.557.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 89,076,52830.332.713.2 7.216.6 Finland $19,457,33354.632.410.1 0.8 2.1 $1,935,50643.535.820.1 0.2 0.4 $3,111,937 2.7 2.0 0.395.0 0.0 49,027,58240.328.119.7 4.9 7.0 France $204,684,69648.230.412.8 1.6 7.1 $16,921,18356.516.422.2 0.0 4.8 $11,573,38568.4 9.9 1.720.0 0.0 803,344,64732.417.218.7 3.528.1 Germany $543,995,47261.723.2 8.2 1.5 5.3 $27,350,74049.226.813.9 0.9 9.1 $27,156,67616.1 4.4 2.377.2 0.0 1,798,880,77739.325.511.9 7.815.5 Gibraltar $833,11480.8 0.611.8 1.7 5.1 $137,67398.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 $86,256100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,368,15985.0 0.2 7.9 1.7 5.2 Greece $112,854,98741.748.0 6.9 0.5 2.9 $9,434,81554.332.9 7.8 0.0 4.9 $1,402,36061.938.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 222,428,98748.828.513.5 1.4 7.8 Greenland $187,406 1.461.3 0.4 9.627.3 $2,309 0.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000418.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000418.txt
  • before the Commission. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.17. See 47 U.S.C. � 208; see also Directel, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7554, 7560 (1996); Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures To Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997). 47 C.F.R. � 1.720. We note that the Commission has determined to forbear from enforcing the unblocked access provisions of TOCSIA against CMRS aggregators and presubscribed carriers like WorldCom. See Forbearance From Applying Provisions of the Communications Act to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 16857, 16894 (1998) (``Forbearance Order''). Because we deny the complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000419.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000419.txt
  • 3, 1999 (``1999 Fishel Letter''), recon. pending. See 47 U.S.C. � 208; see also Directel, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7554, 7560 (1996); Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures To Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.720(c). See General Plumbing Corp. v. New York Telephone Co. et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC 11799, 11809 n. 63 (1996). Id. See also Procedures to be Followed When Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1809 (1988). Section 301 bars radio transmissions that are not ``under and in accordance with a license''
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000864.doc
  • 13, 1997 (citations omitted) (Schroeder Letter). At the suggestion of the Common Carrier Bureau, counsel for the parties consented to a bifurcated approach: The conduit rate issues would proceed according to the Commission's pole attachment complaint procedures, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401, et seq., and the common carrier issues would proceed according to the Commission's formal complaint procedures, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720, et seq. The Common Carrier Bureau thus dismissed the common carrier-related claims in the 1996 complaint without prejudice, and invited the complainants to refile the common carrier claims pursuant to section 208 of the Act. Schroeder Letter. 47 U.S.C. � 254(k). 47 C.F.R. � 64.901. 47 C.F.R. � 32.27. 47 U.S.C. � 541(b). 47 U.S.C. �� 202(a), 224(g). Complaint at
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001502.doc
  • facts as are necessary to give a full understanding of the matter, including relevant legal and documentary support.'' See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.721(b). See also Hi-Rim Communications, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation, File No. E-96-18, 13 FCC Rcd 1982 (1997) (Hi-Rim). The Commission's rules also provide that facts must be supported by affidavits or other relevant documentation. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720(c). Complaint at �� 3 & 33. Id. at � 34; Affidavit of James Cox at � 14; Glo Gem's Brief at 7. Glo Gem Productions, Inc. v. Metronet-Telecom, Inc., File No. E-98-30, Answer and Affirmative Defenses (filed Apr. 24, 1998) (Answer), at 3, � 12. Answer at 5, � 25; Glo Gem Productions, Inc. v. Metronet-Telecom, Inc., File No. E-98-30,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/2000/fcc00108.doc
  • when filing complaints against common carriers. See ITL Order, 12 FCC Rcd at n.21. Petition at 10-11. Call-Back Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd at 9557-58. Id. Call-Back Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 2292; Call-Back Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd at 9557-58. ITL Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 15011-12. ITL Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 15012. Petition at 12. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720(b)-(c), 1.721(a)(5). See also Febrer v. Sprint Corp., 13 FCC Rcd 150, 160 (Com.Car.Bur. Dec. 31, 1997). MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., 5 FCC Rcd 3463, 3463-64 (1990) (citing Empire Bell Tel. Co., 10 FCC 2d 341, 342 (1967) and Petitions for Reconsideration of Commission Action, 77 FCC 2d 54 (1980)). Petition at 13-14. ITL Order, 12 FCC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1999/fcc99322.doc
  • NACE & GUTIERREZ PETITION 10. Pleadings. Lukas, McGowan, Nace & Gutierrez (LMNG) takes issue with the Commission's treatment under the revised ex parte rules of complaints against common carriers pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 208. The Commission's rules specify procedures for both informal section 208 complaints (47 C.F.R. � 1.716 et seq.) and formal section 208 complaints (47 C.F.R. � 1.720 et seq.). In revising the ex parte rules, the Commission ruled that it would continue to treat informal section 208 complaints as exempt and formal section 208 complaints as restricted. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1202(d)(2), 1.1204(b)(5), 1.208; 12 FCC Rcd at 7354-55 �� 20-22. 11. LMNG contends that informal complaint proceedings should be treated as restricted. LMNG notes that, although
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Public_Notices/2000/d001760b.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Public_Notices/2000/d001760b.txt
  • AUTHORIZATIONS, ACCOUNTING RULES, COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS. THE AGENCY ALSO ALLOCATES RADIO SPECTRUM AND ORBITAL SLOTS FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF COMMON CARRIER SERVICES. FORMAL COMPLAINTS A FORMAL COMPLAINT IS AN ALLEGATION OF A VIOLATION OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND/OR A COMMISSION ORDER OR REGULATION. A FORMAL COMPLAINT IS FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 208 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTION 1.720, et. seq., OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT (CALEA) SECTION 302 OF CALEA, PUB. L. NO. 103-414, 108 STAT. 4279 (1994), MODIFIES THE FEE IN SECTION 8(G) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 47 U.S.C. � 158(G): ``. . . UNDER ITEM 1 OF THE MATTER PERTAINING TO COMMON CARRIER SERVICES UNDER SUBITEM: (D). PROCEEDING SECTION
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/209968-1.pdf
  • the complainant the right to conduct discovery, NPRM � 147 n.260, is more "burdensome" on both the parties and the Commission than the informal process, id. � 146. In recognition of the added rights and burdens, the Commission traditionally required the complainant to plead formal complaints with "specificity" and to support all claims with affidavits and documentation. 47 C.F.R. � 1.720. In the NPRM, the FCC proposes to abandon these pleading requirements for Section 255 formal complaints, by allowing a complainant to move into formal proceedings at the end of the informal process, without re-filing a complaint. NPRM � 154. The FCC also proposes not to require its customary filing fee for Section 255 complaints against non-common carriers. Id. � 155.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210018-1.pdf
  • id. at ll 137. If the proposed "fast-track" process is unable to resolve the problem, the consumer will need to resort to the complaint procedures. There is no reason for the Commission to establish unique procedures for Section 255 complaints. The existing flexible informal complaint rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.716-718, and the new, streamlined formal complaint procedures, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-735, should allow for efficient resolution of accessibility complaints. The Commission should not adopt its proposal to eliminate all standing requirements for Section 255 complaints. See Notice at r[ 148. Instead, the Commission should prescribe minimal standing requirements - the complainant must be disabled or be represented by a public or private organization representing the disabled and assert that he or
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210021-1.pdf
  • does not satisfy the complaining party. 47 C.F.R.��1.716-718. 6. The Commission's rules governing formal complaints are structured to elicit full factual information and documents relevant to the positions of the parties, with limited and controlled discovery,a litigation status conference amongst the parties and the Commission's staff,and a briefing of the facts and the legal issues for agency decision. 47 C.F.R. ��1.720-735. These formal complaint rules are designed to deal with "technical" and "legal"arguments not susceptible to resolution bly an exchange of correspendence and oral communications. Surely no less than informal complaint rules,if not more so,these formal complaint :rules constitute an essential, integral part of the framework for implementing the statutory rights of citizens under Section 208 of the Act. 7. Formal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210069-1.pdf
  • comply with Section 255, but does not require them to assure accessibility characteristics of their underlying network equipment.Manufacturers should be obligated to assure that equipment (including software), through standard interfaces and signaling, allows service providers to maintain statutory compliance. l9 see* PRto RI= FvAre Filed_Bgainst n-1-q12 FCC Red 22497 (1997), erratum (released Dece&er 10,1997) ("Formal Complaint Orderfl) ;47 C.F.R. �� 1.720 usen. Because the Commission plans to act in a timely fashion to adopt such new procedures for handling Section 255 complaints,the NPRM properly concludes (11 175-177) that there is no need for the Commission to adopt interim rules for processing such complaints. 11 obviate the need for further Commission proceedings, the NPRM (11144-156) also proposes creation of a further round
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210087-2.pdf
  • fact 4'lmpEementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Access to Telecommunications Services, Telecommunications Equipment, and Customer Premises Equipment By Persons with Disabilities, Notice of Inquiry, WT Docket No. 96-198 (September 17, 1996) �36. 42 For example, no similar requirement for FCC approval exists with respect to formal complaints brought against common carriers under Section 208. 47 C.F.R. �1.720-1.735. 43 NPRM 7155 n. 276, citing Section 8(g) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. $158(g). 44 47 C.F.R. $1.1105. 36 discourage consumers from filing formal complaints; this in turn could undermine enforcement of the accessibility mandates. Thus, it is in the public interest for the Commission to waive the filing fee and we urge the Commission to take such action.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210097-1.pdf
  • for ADR of Section 255 complaints. However, TIA asserts that the use of ADR techniques should not be used for the first few years after final rules in this proceeding are adopted. The Commission correctly points out that ADR techniques are not necessarily appropriate in every case, specifically in (1) precedent setting cases; (2) cases bearing on 128 See � 1.720. 129 NPRM � 158. 96 significant new policy questions; (3) cases where maintaining established policies is of special importance; (4) cases significantly affecting persons or organizations who are not parties to the proceeding; (5) cases where a formal record is essential; and, (6) cases where the agency must maintain continuing jurisdiction with authority to alter its disposition in light of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/213340-1.pdf
  • because of the retailer's (often a mass merchandiser) conduct. 25 See United States Telephone Association Comments at 14 (I'Only customers of a service provider or manufacturer . . . should have standing to initiate a fast-track inquiry or an informal or formal complaint under Section 255.") 26 For instance,the Commission has procedures regarding bona fide complaints, see 47 C.F.R. � 1.720, and has the right to consolidate complaints involving the same issue, see 47 C.F.R. � 1.227(a) (providing for the consolidation of cases involving the same applicant or substantially the same issues in formal hearing proceedings). The Commission should afford the same protections here. 13 IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons,CTIA respectfully requests that the Commission adopt rules governing Section 255 consistent
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992033.doc
  • be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997), 63 F.R. 990 (1998). The previously effective rules are applicable in the case of this formal complaint, which was filed prior to that date. All references to formal complaint rules are to the rules as they were in effect prior to March 18, 1998. Sections 1.720 through 1.735 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720 - 1.735. Complainants argue, at paragraph II of their "Opposition To Defendants' Motion To Dismiss and Amended Motion For Summary Decision," that their motion for summary decision is permitted by Section 1.251(a)(1) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.251(a)(1). However, that section is applicable only to hearing proceedings. 47 C.F.R.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.txt
  • a request from the premises owner to relocate the demarcation point to the MPOE. The telephone company must negotiate terms in good faith and complete the negotiations within forty-five days from said request. Premises owners may file complaints with the Commission for resolution of allegations of bad faith bargaining by telephone companies. See 47 U.S.C. Section 208; 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.720-1.736 (1999). (4) The telephone company shall make available information on the location of the demarcation point within ten business days of a request from the premises owner. If the telephone company does not provide the information within that time, the premises owner may presume the demarcation point to be at the MPOE. Notwithstanding the provisions of 47 U.S.C. � 68.110(c),
• http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/spanish/informalcomplaint.html http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/spanish/informalcomplaint.pdf
  • parte debe cumplir con las normas especficas del procedimiento, presentarse ante la FCC y presentar documentacin que trate los aspectos legales. Las partes involucradas en la queja normalmente son representadas por abogados o expertos en la ley de comunicaciones y las normas procesales de la FCC. Toda la informacin sobre este tipo de quejas la puede encontrar en las secciones 1.720 a la 1.735 de las normas de la FCC, localizadas en 47 C.F.R. 1.720- 1.735. Tambin puede visitar el sitio Web de la Oficina para el Cumplimiento de la Ley en [20]www.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/laction.html (en ingls). Quejas sobre el servicio telefnico local o cable Si tiene problemas con su servicio telefnico local, incluyendo la asistencia para directorios, o el servicio telefnico dentro
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/E911/e911.html
  • staff follows them carefully and enforces them. Failure to comply with the rules can result in dismissal of the complaint. You should feel free to contact the staff to discuss these procedures and ask any questions. The rules governing formal complaints (including the procedures governing the Accelerated Docket) are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.720-1.736 (1999). For additional information, you may want to look at the FCC's Report and Order that adopted these rules, which is published in the FCC Record at 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997). The specific rules governing the Accelerated Docket are published in the FCC Record at 13 FCC Rcd 17018 (1998). A filing fee is required for all formal complaints.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/LoTelComp/ltcoccmv.html
  • staff follows them carefully and enforces them. Failure to comply with the rules can result in dismissal of the complaint. You should feel free to contact the staff to discuss these procedures and ask any questions. The rules governing formal complaints (including the procedures governing the Accelerated Docket) are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at [20]47 C.F.R. Sections 1.720-1.736 (1999). For additional information, you may want to look at the FCC's Report and Order that adopted these rules, which is published in the FCC Record at [21]12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997). The specific rules governing the Accelerated Docket are published in the FCC Record at [22]13 FCC Rcd 17018 (1998). A filing fee is required for all formal complaints.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.html
  • Revised Complaint, File No. E-98-48 (filed Sept. 4, 1998), � 36. Complaint, File No. E-98-49 (filed July 15, 1998), � 32-33. The Defendants identify additional procedural deficiencies in Verizon's Supplemental Complaints and argue that the complaints should be dismissed or denied as a result. MCI Answer at 6-7, 13-15; Global Crossing Answer, Part III at 2-5. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.720 (establishing general pleading requirements); 47 C.F.R. � 1.721(a) (establishing rules for format and content of complaints); 47 C.F.R. � 1.722(c) (establishing rules for requests for damages). We agree that Commission staff should have directed Verizon to amend its pleadings to correct the deficiencies. However, because the deficiencies have not compromised the Defendants' ability to address the legal issues raised in
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.html
  • theory, however. BTI Initial Brief at 14. BTI also contends that ACC charges AT&T the competing ILEC access rate rather than the tariffed rate. BTI Amended Answer to AT&T Second Amended Complaint, � 26. In any event, BTI's attempt to plead an estoppel defense in its Amended Answer does not comply with the Commission's rules, see 47 C.F.R. �� 1.724(b), 1.720(b), because BTI failed to cite any legal authority supporting the affirmative defense and failed to allege and provide evidentiary support for facts which, if true, would establish an estoppel defense. See BTI Amended Answer to AT&T Second Amended Complaint, � 70-71. See Bell Atlantic Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPS, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC No. 00-383, 2000 WL
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01238.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01238.html
  • to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 202(a), 208, 251(g), and 271 of Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 202(a), 208, 251(g), and 271, that the Formal Complaint filed by AT&T Corporation IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720 through 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736, that AT&T's Motion to Strike, dated February 8, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary After AT&T filed this complaint, Bell Atlantic acquired NYNEX, which later merged with GTE to form Verizon Communications, Inc. Notwithstanding these corporate changes, for purposes of clarity this Order refers to the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1470A1.html
  • comply with the requirements set forth in section 1.722 of the Commission's rules.7 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS GRANTED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. These rules were promulgated to implement section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 276. 3 APCC Services, Inc.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1645A1.html
  • of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. The Commission promulgated these rules to implement section 276 of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1646A1.html
  • of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. The Commission promulgated these rules to implement section 276 of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1647A1.html
  • of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. The Commission promulgated these rules to implement section 276 of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2503A1.html
  • interest by eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the Commission. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. These rules were promulgated to implement section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 276. 3 See
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3222A1.html
  • and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3223A1.html
  • and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3414A1.html
  • Defendant. ) ) ORDER Adopted: December 12, 2002 Released: December 13, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On September 5, 2002, US LEC of Virginia, L.L.C. (``US LEC'') filed with this Commission a formal complaint against Verizon Virginia, Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),1 and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules.2 The complaint alleges, among other things, that Verizon has unlawfully failed to fulfill its obligations under the parties' interconnection agreement to make payments relating to the exchange of certain traffic.3 Verizon filed its answer denying these obligations on September 25, 2002.4 On December 4, 2002, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Convert Case requesting that
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3442A1.html
  • what these documents purport to be under the Commission's rules. Construing these documents most liberally in favor of DDA, we will assume that they were intended to be either applications for review of a Commission staff decision to close an informal complaint proceeding initiated by DDA pursuant to sections 1.711-1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 or formal complaints pursuant to sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules.4 In either situation, for the reasons described below, DDA's filings are patently meritless, almost to the point of being frivolous. 3. In 2001, DDA filed with the Commission an informal complaint against Verizon and SBC concerning essentially the same circumstances as those described in the documents filed by DDA in this matter.5 Both SBC and Verizon
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3547A1.html
  • supplemental complaint for damages. If Complainants decide to request such relief, they must explain the appropriateness of a particular interest rate, based upon past Commission precedent.31 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Complainants' motion for default judgment IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3584A1.html
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the above-captioned complaint filed by EarthLink, Inc. IS GRANTED in its entirety. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-144A1.html
  • 421, slip op. (N.D. Ohio May 30, 2000) (``District Court Order''), attached as Exhibit A to Answer. Almost eight months later, on January 24, 2001, Orloff filed a formal complaint with the Commission implementing the primary jurisdiction referral. However, because that complaint failed in numerous and significant respects to comply with the Commission's rules governing formal complaints, see 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, Commission staff dismissed the complaint without prejudice on February 1, 2001. See Letter from Alexander P. Starr, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Randy J. Hart and Mark Griffin, counsel for Orloff (dated Feb. 1, 2001). Over two months later, Orloff filed a new complaint, which is the subject of this Order. See Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Arising out
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-182A1.html
  • Amended Formal Complaint at 1. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 MCI WorldCom Answer at 17. 16 See American Message Centers v. FCC, 50 F.3d 35, 41 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citing Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed Where Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1806, 8 (1988)); see also 47 C.F.R. 1.720; Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed Where Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, 22508, 22 (1997) (stating that ``our ... objective is to improve the utility and content of pleadings, so that the complaint, answer, and any necessary reply may serve as the principal basis upon which the Commission will
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-186A1.html
  • (1998). 29 See AT&T Complaint at 11, 44; Beehive Answer at 7-8, 44; Beehive Initial Brief at 23-24; AT&T Initial Brief at 22. We note that AT&T failed to enter into the record section 2.6 of NECA Tariff F.C.C. No. 5. This did not violate any existing rule, however. At the time the complaint was filed in this proceeding, section 1.720(h) of the Commission's rules merely encouraged parties to provide copies of any relevant tariff provisions. 47 C.F.R. 1.720(h) (1996). This rule has since been revised to require that parties provide copies of relevant tariff provisions. 47 C.F.R. 1.720(h) (2001). 30 NECA Tariff F.C.C. No. 5, Section 2.6, Definitions, Access Minutes (emphasis added). Because neither party submitted into the record the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1050A1.html
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the parties' joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the above- captioned complaint filed IS GRANTED in its entirety. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1455A1.html
  • how Verizon's conduct could comply with section 251(c)(4), but still violate the reasonableness standard of sections 201(b)13 and 202(a).14 Given these circumstances, we deny Metro Teleconnect's Complaint in its entirety.15 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 208, and 251 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 208, 251, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720- 1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned formal complaint is DENIED, and this proceeding is hereby TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. See Formal Complaint, Metro Teleconnect Companies, Inc. v.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1930A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion for Dismissal of the above-captioned proceeding IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j),
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2101A1.html
  • jurisdiction over FDVS for the purpose of carrying out the Commission's statutory responsibilities.22 III. DISCUSSION 9. As a threshold matter, we must determine whether Staton's complaints comply with the filing requirements of the Act and the Commission's rules. Section 208 of the Act states that a complaint must be directed against ``any common carrier subject to this Act.''23 Further, section 1.720(b) of the Commission's rules states that a formal complaint ``must contain facts which, if true, are sufficient to constitute a violation of the Act or Commission order or regulation.''24 Section 1.721(a) of the Commission's rules states that a formal complaint shall contain a ``[c]itation to the section of the Communications Act and/or order and/or regulation of the Commission alleged to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-365A1.html
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 252(e)(5), and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the above-captioned complaint filed by Cox and Verizon South IS GRANTED in its entirety. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 252(e)(5) of the Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4092A1.html
  • resolution of disputes and by postponing the need for further litigation and expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of this Commission until such time as may actually be necessary. In addition, the public interest will be served by affording KIS sufficient time to construct a formal complaint that complies with the Commission's rigorous rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, should such a complaint be necessary. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3 and 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.718, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-1A1.html
  • for CW USA and CW plc, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (rel. Sept. 25, 2001) (``Status Conference Order'') at 2, III.3, III.4; at 4, V.12, V.14. 27 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608, 18 & n.51. 28 Reconsideration Petition at 1, 9-13; Reconsideration Reply at 2-5. 29 Reconsideration Petition at 11. 30 Reconsideration Reply at 3. 31 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.733(a)(5); 1.720 (a); 1.732 (c), (d). 32 See Status Conference Order. 33 Reconsideration Petition at 10-11; Reconsideration Reply at 4. 34 Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, 22547, 115 (1997) (``Formal Complaints Order''). 35 Formal Complaints Order, 12
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-278A1.html
  • South's virtual NXX defense on its merits, we do not address the question of whether Starpower's complaint in the liability phase of this proceeding provided sufficient notice to Verizon South of Starpower's intent to collect compensation for virtual NXX calls that Verizon South should have raised its virtual NXX defense in its answer in the liability phase. See 47 C.F.R. 1.720(a) (``[a]ll matters concerning a . . . defense . . . should be pleaded fully and with specificity''); 1.724(b) (the defendant's answer ``shall advise the complainant and the Commission fully and completely of the nature of any defense, and shall respond specifically to all material allegations of the complaint''); Starpower's Reply to Verizon South's Answer, File No. EB-00-MD-19 (filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-96A1.html
  • at 20-21. 113 Core also alleges that Verizon delayed unreasonably in building the entrance facility. Core's Initial Br. at 15- 20; Core's Reply Br. at 20-21. Yet, Core has failed to provide probative evidence supporting this allegation. Specifically, Core's Complaint provided no evidence to support its assertion. This failure, standing alone, could warrant disregard of Core's allegation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.720(c), 1.721 (a)(5), (a)(11). In any event, in subsequent briefing, Core relied on a single e-mail sent to Core by Verizon. Core's Initial Br. at 15-17 (citing Answer, Ex. 4 (Verizon e-mail to Core)). Yet this e-mail is reasonably read in the manner suggested by Verizon, see Verizon's Opp. Br. at 21, particularly given Core's failure to cite it until final
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1307A1.html
  • public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 6. 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, sections 1.720-1.729 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.729, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint, the Supplemental Complaint and the Petition ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and this proceeding is hereby terminated. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1339A1.html
  • 41 Joint Statement at 4, para. 2. 42 Letter from Walter Staton, Executive Vice President, Staton Wholesale to Lynn Vermillera and David Hunt, FCC, October 14, 2003 (``Staton Letter''). 43 See Motion of MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc to Strike, filed October 23, 2003. 44 See Staton's Opposition to Motion to Strike, filed October 29, 2003. 45 See generally 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736. Even if we had considered the letter, it does not add additional facts or issues that would change the outcome of this proceeding. The letter focuses mainly on Staton's speculation regarding potential motives MCI may have had to intentionally disconnect Staton from the All Eights Number. Staton does not, however, support its speculative theories with record evidence. 46 Joint Statement
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1604A1.html
  • public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.729 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720- 1.729, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1682A1.html
  • quarter for which dial-around compensation is being billed. The parties shall calculate the applicable interest using the base damages amounts set forth in section III.D, supra.68 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 23. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Complainants' Supplemental Complaint for Damages IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein as to Complainants APCC Services, Inc., Data Net Systems, LLC, and Intera Communications Corp. 24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1809A1.html
  • action within sixty (60) days after notice of termination or expiration of the automatic stay in Cable & Wireless' bankruptcy proceedings, rather than filing an entirely new formal complaint.12 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Qwest's and U.S. South's Joint Request for Dismissal With Prejudice as to U.S. South IS GRANTED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2078A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Madison River's and BellSouth's joint motion for dismissal with prejudice IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-259A1.html
  • Core; and fostering diligence in the discovery process and respect for the Commission's complaint processes as a whole. Accordingly, we deny Verizon's request to admit the Documents into the record. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 15. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Documents may not be entered into the record of this proceeding, and that Verizon's Answer is stricken. Commission staff will promptly issue a schedule for further actions to be taken in this proceeding.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2865A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b)
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2866A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b)
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2972A1.html
  • and by postponing the need for litigation and expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of this Commission until such time as may actually be necessary. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716- 18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Request to Convert IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3265A1.html
  • of Anchorage, Inc., d/b/a Alaska Communications Systems, ACS Local Service, and ACS; ACS of Fairbanks, d/b/a Alaska Communications Systems, ACS Local Service, and ACS; and ACS of Alaska, Inc., d/b/a Alaska Communications Systems, ACS Local Service, and ACS (collectively ``ACS''), pursuant to sections 201, 202, 251, and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),1 and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules.2 The complaint alleges, among other things, that ACS has failed to comply with the Act and the Commission's rules requiring the non-discriminatory provisioning of unbundled network elements and telecommunications services for resale.3 In December 2003, the parties jointly requested that the Commission defer establishing a further schedule in this proceeding, because they were actively engaged in
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3476A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b)
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3477A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b)
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3569A1.html
  • and 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727, Verizon's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Defer, is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. 29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, Broadview's formal complaint of December 30, 2003 SHALL BE CONVERTED into an informal complaint with a designated filing date of December 30, 2003, and that the formal complaint and answer filed in
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-753A1.html
  • 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 to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice the Complaint against the Remaining Defendants IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1972A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b) and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1974A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b) and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1975A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b) and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1976A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b) and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2214A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Formal Complaint, File No. EB-05-MD-005 (filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2655A1.html
  • at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-265A1.html
  • we to rule in their favor on this remaining claim. Accordingly, we need not address this claim, and we hereby dismiss it without prejudice. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated pursuant to sections 0.111 and 0.131 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.131, that Complainants' claims under sections 201(b) and 276 of the Act are GRANTED. 29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 416 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3072A1.html
  • dismissal at this stage is appropriate and will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaints ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in their entirety and the proceedings ARE TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary McEnery, Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 201(b) and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-435A1.html
  • the parties to proceed with mediation, instead of a formal complaint proceeding, at the present time.1 Accordingly, we hereby GRANT the complainants' request to withdraw this complaint without prejudice and TERMINATE this proceeding. 2. This Order is issued pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.722, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr, Division Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Law Offices BLOOSTON, MORDKOFSKY, DICKENS, DUFFY & PRENDERGAST 2120 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 AFFILIATED SOUTH AMERICAN OFFICES ESTUDIO JAUREGUI &
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-64A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 11 Formal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-674A1.html
  • informal complaints into formal complaints to minimize the burden and expense on all parties and the Commission.23 First, pursuant to section 1.722(c) of the Commission's rules,24 we will bifurcate complaint proceedings and determine damages in a separate proceeding.25 Therefore, the issue of damages should not be addressed in either the complaint or answer. Second, we waive the requirements in sections 1.720-1.723 of the Commission's rules26 setting forth the requirements for filing formal complaints, except as follows: 13. 1.721(a)(1) A formal complaint shall contain the name of each complainant and defendant; 14. 1.721(a)(2) The occupation, address and telephone number of each complainant and, to the extent known, each defendant. 15. 1.721(a)(3) The name, address and telephone number of complainant's attorney, if represented
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-207A1.html
  • . . .''). 40 Specifically, in one of its filings in the Notice-and-Comment Proceeding, Verizon stated: ``[I]f [OCI] truly believes the [PICC] charge is unlawful, it may file a complaint.'' Joint Statement Exhibit JS-21 (Bell Atlantic Opposition to Oncor Motion for Interim Relief, dated June 25, 1999) at 1. 41 OCI Brief at 14-15, n.6. 42 For example, 47 C.F.R. 1.720(b)-(d) and 1.721(a)(5)-(6) required OCI to set forth in its Formal Complaint all the facts and legal analyses upon which the claims are based. 43 See Formal Complaint Exhibit 10, Attachment C, at 1. 44 See Formal Complaint Exhibit 10, Attachment D, at 2. 45 See Joint Statement Exhibit JS-21 at 1. 46 See generally Cablevision v. New York Tel, 46
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-119A1.html
  • promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division _________________________ 1 Letter to Lisa B. Griffin and Anthony J. DeLaurentis, FCC, from Frank G. Lamancusa, counsel for GCI, and James F. Bendernagel, Jr., counsel for
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1424A1.html
  • 14-15. 15. We find that there is no remaining dispute in this case, and no requested relief remaining for us to grant. Accordingly, we dismiss the Complaint as moot. IV. Ordering Clause 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 254(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111 and 0.311, that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as moot, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Complaint,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2467A1.html
  • and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736, 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 Western Payphone Systems Formal Complaint for Payphone Compensation, File No. EB-06-MD-009 (filed Sept. 21, 2006) ("Complaint"). Motion to Dismiss, File No. EB-06-MD-009 (filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-520A1.html
  • concurrent jurisdiction over the issues in dispute in this proceeding, and our order of dismissal should not be construed as agreeing or disagreeing with Momentum's assertion. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. SS 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208 and 271, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Motion to Withdraw, File No. EB-05-MD-029 (filed Mar. 2, 2006) ("Motion"). Formal Complaint, File No. EB-05-MD-029 (filed Nov. 21, 2005) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C. SS 208
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-65A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 11
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-66A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 11
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-68A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 11
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-69A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 11
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-70A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 11
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-71A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 11
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-817A1.html
  • promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-818A1.html
  • promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-139A1.html
  • immediately two motions related to Network's statute of limitations defense. Consequently, we deny Network's application for review and affirm the Bureau Liability Order. I. Ordering Clause 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and 276, and sections 1.115, 1.720-1.736, and 64.1300 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.115, 1.720-1.736, and 64.1300, that Network's Application for Review IS DENIED, APCC's motion to strike IS DISMISSED as moot, and the Bureau Liability Order IS AFFIRMED to the extent described herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Application for Review, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed Mar. 1, 2005) ("Application"). 47 C.F.R.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-147A1.html
  • an arrangement, we conclude, consistent with the D.C. Circuit's reasoning, that Qwest's charges for transporting one-way paging telecommunications traffic to Mountain from Qwest's own customers are unlawful. IV. Ordering Clause 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736, 51.703(b), and 51.709(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.720-1.736, 51.703(b), and 51.709(b), Mountain's claim that Qwest's charges for transporting traffic to Mountain from Qwest's own customers are unlawful IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Formal Complaint, File No. EB-00-MD-017 (filed Sept. 12, 2000) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C. S 208. See Mountain Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 355
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2079A1.html
  • * REDACTED * * * ]. In turn, the record does not demonstrate that federal case law supports Network's request for a stay absent a pledge of security for the full judgment amount. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, that Network's Motion to Stay the Damages Order IS DENIED, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Network's Motion for Leave to File a Reply IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2150A1.html
  • at 10-11, P 34. Salsgiver Telecom also asserted a request for damages, citing SS 206-209 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. SS 206-209. Complaint at 8-9, P 29. It did not, however, offer proof of any alleged damages, nor did it comply with the Commission's rules for bringing complaints for damages under sections 206-208 of the Act. See 47 C.F.R. SS 1.720 - 1.736. As a result of these deficiencies, we are unable to assess the merits of Salsgiver Telecom's request for damages and therefore deny it. Complaint at 7-9, PP 24-30. See Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C. v. North Pittsburgh Tel. Co., File No. EB-05-MD-014 (Complaint filed July 8, 2005); DQE Communications Network Servs. v. North Pittsburgh Tel. Co., File No. EB-05-MD-027
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-667A1.html
  • As part of this review, the Commission sought recommendations from the public concerning whether these rules and procedures should be modified or eliminated. II. SCOPE OF REVIEW 2. The Commission identified the following rule parts containing regulations administered by the Enforcement Bureau for review and comment in the Public Notice: Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 and 1.720 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of formal complaints against common carriers. Sections 1.80 and 1.89 of the Commission's rules address forfeiture proceedings and penalties and Notice of Violations proceedings. Increased competition in the marketplace does not diminish the need for these rules, and thus we do not find that they are no longer necessary in the public
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-14A1.html
  • outstanding issues, we render moot APCC's otherwise compelling objection that the Petition improperly seeks interlocutory relief. See Opposition to Defendants' Petition for Reconsideration, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed Dec. 9, 2005) ("Opposition to Recon.") at 6-7 (citing 47 C.F.R. S 1.106(a)(1) (stating that "[p]etitions for reconsideration of ... interlocutory actions will not be entertained")). 47 C.F.R. SS 1.716-1.718. 47 C.F.R. SS 1.720-1.736. 47 U.S.C. S 415(b). See, e.g., Operator Communications, Inc. v. Contel of the South, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19783, 19792 at P 23 (2005). 47 C.F.R. S 1.718 (stating, in pertinent part, that a formal complaint "will be deemed to relate back to the filing date of the informal complaint: Provided, That the formal complaint: (a)
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-175A1.html
  • 1, 11-12. Farmers' Opening Brief at 2, 14. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.725 ("Cross-complaints seeking any relief within the jurisdiction of the Commission against any carrier that is a party (complainant or defendant) to that proceeding are expressly prohibited. Any claim that might otherwise meet the requirements of a cross-complaint may be filed as a separate complaint in accordance with S:S: 1.720 through 1.736. For purposes of this subpart, the term `cross-complaint' shall include counterclaims."). See U.S. Telepacific Corp. v. Tel-America of Salt Lake City, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24555-56, P: 8 (2004) (citing "long-standing Commission precedent" holding that the Commission does not act as a collection agent for carriers with respect to unpaid tariffed charges, and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1205A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1366A1.html
  • 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., Application
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2472A1.html
  • public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that NewSouth's Complaint against BellSouth in the above-captioned proceeding IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau As a result of transactions consummated in 2004,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2700A1.html
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint of Verizon, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed July 25,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-424A1.html
  • 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 Sess.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-425A1.html
  • 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 Sess.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-426A1.html
  • 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, 97th
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-525A1.html
  • 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. 51
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-526A1.html
  • 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. 2d
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-778A1.html
  • is dispositive of this issue, we also note that DeMoss has failed to submit documentation in support of this claim. DeMoss references selected portions of Sprint's FCC Tariff No. 1, section 2.3.1(A), and selected portions of the Industry Guidelines for Toll-Free Number Administration, but he fails to present these documents as a part of the record, in accordance with sections 1.720(f) and (h), and 1.721(a)(11) of the Commission's rules. D. Remedies 1. Whether Equity Requires the Return of the AMERICA Toll-Free Numbers to DeMoss 31. In seeking equitable relief, DeMoss asks that we order Sprint to reinstate the AMERICA toll-free numbers to him. The relief that DeMoss seeks, however, obviously cannot be granted without causing harm to the current user of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-860A1.html
  • that the Commission seek comment on whether it should require (as it already does in the voice context) that any service provider accept a cancellation request from a customer's authorized agent. IV. Conclusion and REcommendationS 35. In sum, for all of the foregoing reasons, and pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 222, and 303(r) of the Act, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, we recommend that the Commission (i) DENY Complainants' claim (i.e., Count I) that Verizon's customer retention marketing practices violate section 222(b) of the Act; and (ii) DENY Complainants' claim (i.e., Count II) that Verizon's customer retention marketing practices violate section 222(a) of the Act. Complainants' claim (i.e., Count III) that Verizon's customer retention marketing practices violate
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-755A1.html
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes, and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111 and 0.311, that the July 2008 and March 2009 Motions ARE GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief, Market Disputes
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-100A1.html
  • 24 FCC Rcd at 3808, P: 5, n.12. North County makes the assertion in a single, unsupported footnote. See North County AFR at 8 n.30. MetroPCS did not make the assertion until its Response. See Metro Response at 4-5. Indeed, MetroPCS's Application refers to the traffic at issue as intrastate several times. See MetroPCS AFR at ii, 1, 17. Rule 1.720(c) provides: "Facts must be supported by relevant documentation or affidavit." 47 C.F.R.S: 1.720(c). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.721(a)(5), 1.724(g), 1.726(e), 1.732(b) (all requiring that factual assertions in formal complaint proceedings be supported by declarations and/or documents). Given the parties' failure to preserve or support their claim that there is any interstate traffic at issue here, we have no occasion in
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1192A1.html
  • authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111 and 0.311, that the Request for Resolution on the Pleadings IS GRANTED. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 209, and sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111 and 0.311, that the Formal Complaint IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein, and is otherwise denied. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 209
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-477A1.html
  • when Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2614 (1993); Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. AT&T Communications, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 8130 (1989), aff'd sub nom. Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. FCC, 915 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 920 (1991). See generally 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.735. The parties agree that Smith subscribed to Sprint as his long distance carrier at the time he received these messages on his residential phone line. Defendants' Response to Staff's Request at 5. Verizon further states that it takes Verizon's systems longer to update non-marketing, non-sales lists as opposed to messages used as a part of a marketing or sales campaign
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-74A1.html
  • simply recounts the events as to how the number was purportedly released. Without the opportunity to question witnesses to the event, Staton argues that the Bureau could not have decided whether MCI acted willfully or negligently. 9. Staton is incorrect that the testimony of live witnesses is necessary to resolve formal complaints such as Staton's. As set forth in section 1.720 of our rules, formal complaint proceedings, such as this one, "are generally resolved on a written record consisting of a complaint, answer, and joint statement of stipulated facts, disputed facts and key legal issues, along with all associated affidavits, exhibits and other attachments." In American Message Centers v. FCC, the court, in endorsing the Commission's procedures governing formal complaints, stated:
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-59A1.html
  • therefore need not, and do not, reach the claims stated in the remaining counts of the Complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss these counts without prejudice. V. ordering clauses 54. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 203, and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 201, 203, and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, that Counts III and IV of the Complaint are hereby GRANTED as to liability; and 55. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S:
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-5A1.html
  • the existence of the Collection Action Orders, such orders were not addressed in either the Bureau or Commission decisions in that proceeding. We note that the Commission's rules require parties to formal complaint proceedings, among other things, to distinguish opposing legal authority and to ensure that relevant legal authorities are current and updated as necessary. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. S: 1.720(e), (g). (continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-5 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-5 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-19A1.html
  • need not and do not reach the merits of Count II of the Complaint, and we dismiss Count II of the Complaint without prejudice. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 25. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736, that Count I of the Complaint is GRANTED to the extent described herein, and Count II of the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 47 U.S.C. S: 208. See Formal Complaint of AT&T Texas, File No. EB-11-MD-008 (filed Sept. 9, 2011) (Complaint). See also Proposed Findings
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00898cd.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00898cd.txt
  • carrier to a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') requesting a change of a customer's primary interexchange and/or intraLATA carrier (``PIC''); ``Letter of Agency'' or ``LOA'' means a written authorization signed by the customer authorizing a PIC change; ``Informal Complaint'' or ``Customer Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 C.F.R. �� 1.711-1.717. ``Formal Complaint'' means a complaint filed under 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.735. 4. The Parties agree that the provisions of this voluntary Consent Decree shall be subject to final approval by the Bureau by incorporation of such provisions by reference in an Adopting Order of the Bureau. 5. The Parties agree that this Consent Decree shall become effective on the date on which the Bureau releases the Adopting Order. Upon release, the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc99401.html
  • Followed when Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2614 (1993); Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. AT&T Communications, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 8130 (1989), aff'd sub nom. Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. FCC, 915 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 920 (1991). See generally 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.735. 18 See, e.g., Sea Island Broadcasting Corp. of S.C. v. FCC, 627 F.2d 240, 243 (D.C. Cir. 1980); see also Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21,905, 22,068, para. 337 (1996); Bender v. Clark, 744
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-02-293A1.html
  • 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 47 C.F.R. 1.720 - 1.736. In this regard, complainants must attach a copy of the underlying informal complaint to the formal complaint being filed. 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.718. See also Informal Complaints Filed By Independent Payphone Service Providers Against Various Local Exchange Carriers Seeking Refunds of End User Common Line Charges, File No. 89-170, DA 99-1858,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-967A1.html
  • complaints. For further information, contact the Enforcement Bureau at 202-418-7330. Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, FCC 11-16, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1594 (2011) ("Part 1 Order"). Id. at P: P: 10, 15. Id. at P: 10. Id. at P: 15. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418. Note that these new rules do not affect existing section 208 formal complaints or existing section 224 pole attachment complaints. They also do not concern carrier-to-carrier informal complaints. See Id. at Appendix A, (listing new rule S:1.49(f)(1)(i) that requires "[f]ormal complaint proceedings under Section 208 . . . " to be filed electronically and excluding informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/rules/1730.html
  • rule below at another source, such as the web site of the Government Printing Office, [1]http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html. Sec. 1.730 The Enforcement Bureau's Accelerated Docket. (a) Parties to formal complaint proceedings against common carriers within the responsibility of the Enforcement Bureau (see Secs. 0.111, 0.311, 0.314 of this chapter) may request inclusion on the Bureau's Accelerated Docket. As set out in Secs. 1.720 through 1.736, proceedings on the Accelerated Docket are subject to shorter pleading deadlines and certain other procedural rules that do not apply to other formal complaint proceedings before the Enforcement Bureau. (b) Any party that contemplates filing a formal complaint may submit a request to the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau's Market Disputes Resolution Division, either by phone or in
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/sed/PSGuide.html
  • carefully and enforces them. Failure to comply with the rules can result in dismissal of a complaint. Feel free to contact the Market Disputes Resolution Division staff to discuss these procedures and ask any questions. The rules governing formal Section 208 complaints (including the procedures governing the Accelerated Docket) are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736 (2001). For additional information, you may want to look at the FCC's Report and Order that adopted these rules, which is published at 12 FCC Rcd 22,497 (1997) and Order on Reconsideration which is published at 16 FCC Rcd 5681 (2001). The order adopting the Accelerated Docket rule is published at 13 FCC Rcd 17,018 (1998). A filing fee is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/laction.html
  • unlawful action. Because the Commission resolves this type of complaint in a manner similar to a court proceeding, we strongly encourage consumers to seek the advice of legal counsel before filing an action. Typically, corporations file this type of legal action against telecommunications carriers. The rules governing the filing of this type of legal action can be found in sections 1.720-1.736 of the FCC's rules. 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736. last reviewed/updated on Thu Jan 14 08:37:32 EST 2010 __________________________________________________________________ [18]Skip Bottom FCC Navigation Links and Contact Info [19]FCC Home | [20]Search | [21]RSS | [22]Updates | [23]E-Filing | [24]Initiatives | [25]Consumers | [26]Find People __________________________________________________________________ [27]Skip FCC Footer and Contact Info Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 [28]More
• http://www.fcc.gov/fees/2000ccbguide.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fees/2000ccbguide.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fees/2000ccbguide.txt
  • AUTHORIZATIONS, ACCOUNTING RULES, COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS. THE AGENCY ALSO ALLOCATES RADIO SPECTRUM AND ORBITAL SLOTS FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF COMMON CARRIER SERVICES. FORMAL COMPLAINTS A FORMAL COMPLAINT IS AN ALLEGATION OF A VIOLATION OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND/OR A COMMISSION ORDER OR REGULATION. A FORMAL COMPLAINT IS FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 208 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTION 1.720, et. seq., OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT (CALEA) SECTION 302 OF CALEA, PUB. L. NO. 103-414, 108 STAT. 4279 (1994), MODIFIES THE FEE IN SECTION 8(G) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 47 U.S.C. � 158(G): ``. . . UNDER ITEM 1 OF THE MATTER PERTAINING TO COMMON CARRIER SERVICES UNDER SUBITEM: (D). PROCEEDING SECTION
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.pdf
  • Commission are properly before it. Therefore, GNAPs claims, the Commission was precluded from basing its decision on any other grounds. By doing otherwise, GNAPs claims the FCC violated its due process rights and the Order must be set aside. The FCC's rules require that a petitioner plead "[a]ll matters concerning a claim ... fully and with specificity." 47 C.F.R. � 1.720(a). As interpreted by the FCC, these rules bar a complainant from amending or otherwise "introducing new issues late in the development of the case." In re Implementation of the Telecom. Act of 1996, 12 F.C.C.R. 22,497, 22,597 p 241 (1997). GNAPs claims that any departure from those rules violates GNAPs' due process rights. Specifically, GNAPs alleges that the FCC's conduct
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2003/01-1188.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2003/01-1188.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2003/01-1188.pdf
  • p 37 n.82 (emphasis in original). Unlike a complaint governed by the notice pleading system of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint filed with the Commission must set forth "[a]ll matters concerning a claim ... fully and with specificity" and must "complete[ly] identif[y] ... [the] conduct complained of and the nature of the injury sustained." 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720(a), 1.721(a)(6) (1994). Atlas/Total's complaint clearly seeks damages for AT&T's having blocked service to Audiobridge but never specifically alleges that Atlas is entitled to recover from AT&T access charges for calls completed before the blocking began. Atlas/Total tries to salvage its claim by arguing that "[t]he issue of unpaid access charges was raised in the Complaint as a component of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/services/911-services/enhanced911/actions.html
  • can help answer any questions concerning procedures, emphasize certain requirements that must be satisfied, and help focus the key issues in any complaint that is filed. Read the Rules Please feel free to contact the staff to discuss these procedures and ask any questions. The rules governing formal complaints are found in Code of Federal Regulations at 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.720-1.736 (1999). For additional information, please see the FCC's Report and Order that adopted these rules, which is published in the FCC Record at 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997). A filing fee is required for all formal complaints. See 47 C.F. R. section 1.1105 (1999). Fast Links * [73]9-1-1 Home * [74]Enhanced 9-1-1 Wireless Services Home * [75]PSAP Registry * [76]Reports
• http://www.fcc.gov/slamming/part64.pdf
  • subscriber. Failure by the carrier to re- spond or provide proof of verification VerDate 0ct<09>2002 01:11 Oct 24, 2002Jkt 197190PO 00000Frm 00272Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\197190T.XXX197190T 273 Federal Communications Commission �64.1160 will be presumed to be clear and con- vincing evidence of a violation. (e) Election of Forum. The Federal Communications Commission will not adjudicate a complaint filed pursuant to �1.719 or ��1.720 through 1.736 of this chapter, involving an alleged unauthor- ized change, as defined by �64.1100(e), while a complaint based on the same set of facts is pending with a state commission. [65 FR 47692, Aug. 3, 2000] �64.1160Absolution procedures where the subscriber has not paid charges. (a) This section shall only apply after a subscriber has determined that an unauthorized
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/part68faqs.pdf
  • connection to the PSTN or to wireline carrier-owned facilities used in providing private line services, may provide such information to the FCC's Enforcement Bureau. In addition, the Enforcement Bureau considers formal complaints against common carriers for alleged violations of Part 68 rules pursuant to the general rules regarding formal complaints against common carriers, which are found in 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. In general, formal complaint proceedings are similar to lawsuits, and are subject to strict procedural requirements. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau considers informal consumer complaints regarding Part 68's hearing aid compatibility and volume control rules pursuant to 47 C.F.R. �� 68.415-68.420. Penalties for failure to comply with Part 68 rules and requirements are found in 47 U.S.C. Section 503