FCC Web Documents citing 1.722

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
  • Services, LLP (collectively, ``Network'') to stay pending appeal the effect of the Commission's Damages Order in this proceeding. For the following reasons, we conclude that Network has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating entitlement to such interim equitable relief. Procedural background: Pursuant to sections 201(b) and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Rule 1.722, the Damages Order granted the supplemental complaint filed against Network by the above-named Complainants (collectively, ``APCC''), and directed Network to pay APCC approximately $2.8 million in payphone compensation, plus prejudgment interest, within 90 days of the Damages Order's release on February 23, 2007. On April 12, 2007, Network petitioned for review of the Damages Order in the United States Court
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.pdf
  • 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and several Commission orders dealing with the assignment of toll-free numbers. DeMoss requests: (1) that the toll-free numbers be re-assigned to DeMoss; (2) that the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') fine Sprint one million dollars ($1,000,000) for its alleged misrepresentations to the Commission; and (3) that we conduct a separate proceeding pursuant to section 1.722 of the rules to determine damages. For the reasons set forth below, we find that Sprint violated section 201(b) when it negligently disconnected the AMERICA toll-free numbers on July 18, 2003. With respect to the remaining alleged violations, we find that DeMoss has failed to satisfy his burden of proof. Because we have found liability in this bifurcated proceeding, DeMoss
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.pdf
  • The Complaint On February 11, 2008, Complainants filed the Complaint, alleging that the Verizon customer retention marketing practices described above violate sections 222(b), 222(a), and 201(b) of the Act. Complainants seek an order enjoining Verizon from continuing such customer retention marketing. Complainants also seek an award of damages, but deferred that determination to a separate, subsequent proceeding pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules. LEGAL ANALYSIS Complainants Have Not Established a Violation of Section 222(b). Verizon Does Not Receive the Proprietary Information for ``Purposes of Providing Any Telecommunications Service'' Within the Meaning of Section 222(b). Section 222(b) provides that ``[a] telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf
  • III, XIV, XVIII (§ 64.2401(d)) and XXI of the Complaint. See Second Supplemental Joint Status Report of Complainant and Defendants, File No. EB-05-MD-013 (filed Jan. 23, 2006) (``Second Supplemental Joint Status Report'') at 2-3, ¶ 2; 5, ¶ 9. See also Supplemental Joint Statement at 8, ¶ 25. Thus, we hereby dismiss those counts without prejudice. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(d). MAP erroneously cited to rule 1.722(h) in its Complaint. Complaint at 7-8, ¶ 14. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(e). See, e.g., Complaint at 1-2, ¶ 1; Joint Statement of Complainant and Defendants, File No. EB-05-MD-013 (filed Sept. 16, 2005) (``Joint Statement'') at 4, ¶ 12; MAP Mobile Communications, Inc. Responsive Brief on Selected Issues, File No. EB-05-MD-013 (filed Mar. 8,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.pdf
  • with pursuing this complaint.'' First, we note that the ``expenses of attempting to opt-out'' do not encompass all the expenses of pursuing this complaint. The evidence indicates that the one improperly handled do-not-call request was promptly rectified when Smith repeated that request in June 2004. Thus, Complainants have not provided the necessary information to prove damages as required by section 1.722(h) of the Commission's rules. Moreover, we find that Complainants' legal and administrative costs incurred as a pro se litigant are analogous to attorney fees. Because the Act and the Commission's rules do not allow the Commission to award attorney fees or costs, we decline to award such costs as damages here. 27. We also deny Complainant's request that we impose
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.pdf
  • grant a supplemental complaint for damages filed by APCC Services, Inc., Data Net Systems, LLC, Davel Communications, Inc., Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services, and Intera Communications Corp. (collectively, ``Complainants'' or ``APCC'') against NetworkIP, LLC, and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP (collectively, ``Defendants'' or ``Network'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and section 1.722 of the Commission's rules. Complainants allege that, under the Commission's payphone compensation rules, Network owes Complainants ``dial-around'' compensation and prejudgment interest for 11,622,941 payphone calls completed during the period October 1, 1999 through November 22, 2001. For the reasons explained below, we agree with Complainants and award damages in the principal amount of $2,789,505.84, plus prejudgment interest at an annual
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.pdf
  • LSR. The Complaint On February 11, 2008, Complainants filed the Complaint alleging, inter alia, that the Verizon customer retention marketing practices described above violate section 222(b) of the Act. Complainants seek an order enjoining Verizon from continuing such customer retention marketing. Complainants also seek an award of damages, but defer that determination to a separate, subsequent proceeding pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules. Thus, this Order addresses only the question of Verizon's alleged liability. LEGAL ANALYSIS Section 222(b) provides that ``[a] telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use such information only for such purpose, and shall not use such information for its own marketing efforts.'' Thus,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.pdf
  • U.S.C. § 203(c). Section 201(b) requires that ``all charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with . . . communication service shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.'' 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). Complaint at 27, ¶ 59. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(e). This Order contains an abbreviated background section. A full recitation of the facts appears in paragraphs 3 through 13 of the October 2 Order, which we incorporate by reference. October 2 Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17974-77, ¶¶ 3-13. Complaint at 4, ¶ 4; Joint Statement, File No. EB-07-MD-001 (filed June 6, 2007) (``Joint Statement'') at 1, ¶ 2. Joint
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-43A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-43A1.pdf
  • through 9 of the Second Recon Order, 24 FCC. Rcd at 14802-04, ¶¶ 2-9. Formal Complaint of Qwest Communications Corp., File No. EB-07-MD-001 (filed May 2, 2007) (``Complaint''). Complaint at 1. Initial Liability Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17976, ¶ 9. Initial Liability Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17974, ¶ 3. Complaint at 27, ¶ 59. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(d)(2) (A complainant seeking damages in a separate proceeding must ``[s]tate clearly and unequivocally that the complainant wishes a determination of damages to be made in a proceeding that is separate from and subsequent to the proceeding in which the determinations of liability and prospective relief will be made.''). Initial Liability Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17980-83, ¶¶ 21-25; 47 U.S.C.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.pdf
  • 205 (authorizing Commission to ``prescribe just and reasonable charges'')); id. at 37-38, ¶ 82 (Prayer for Relief). Sprint states that it ``is not requesting damages,'' Complaint at 4, ¶ 5, but adds that it ``reserves the right to seek damages at a later time,'' id. at 4 n.8. Sprint's conflicting statements fail to comply with the requirements of Commission rule 1.722(d) regarding requests for damages in a subsequent proceeding. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(d) (requiring that requests for damages be ``clear and unequivocal''). 47 C.F.R. § 61.26; Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Local Exchange Carriers, Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 9108 (2004) (``CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order''). 47 C.F.R.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.pdf
  • Brief (``Calabro Dep.''); Deposition of Jeffrey D. Owens, attached as Ex. 25 to AT&T Initial Brief (``Owens Dep.''); Facts to Which YMax Refused to Stipulate in the Joint Statement But Which Mr. Pavol Verified as True in His Deposition, attached as Appendix B to AT&T Initial Brief (``Appendix B''). AT&T elected to bifurcate its claims for damages pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(d). Therefore, this Order addresses AT&T's liability claims only. Complaint at 8, ¶ 13. At an appropriate time, AT&T may file a supplemental complaint for damages. 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(e). See Reply Legal Analysis at 9; AT&T Initial Brief at 4-5 & App. A; AT&T Reply Brief at 12. We therefore dismiss without
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2070A1.txt
  • Commission dismiss AT&T's pending supplemental complaints without prejudice. The parties agree that the Commission's grant of this joint motion will not be deemed to prejudice AT&T's rights in the pending arbitration proceeding between the parties to these formal complaints. Further, as a condition of this joint motion to dismiss without prejudice, Qwest has agreed to waive the application of section 1.722(b)(2)(ii) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(b)(2)(ii), to any renewed supplemental complaints that may be filed hereafter. We are satisfied that granting this motion to dismiss without prejudice will serve the public interest by enabling the parties to resolve this matter expeditiously through a private dispute resolution process, without unnecessary expenditure of further administrative resources by the Commission. Accordingly,
• 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
  • File a Reply, filed by Power on April 21, 1999, and the Motion to Combine Proceedings, filed by Power on April 21, 1999, ARE DISMISSED as moot. It is FURTHER ORDERED, that Power shall IMMEDIATELY upon release of this Order, stop all mobile operations, as described in this Order, under the Power license. It is FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.722(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(b)(2), that Marzec may file her supplemental complaint for damages within 60 days of the date of public notice of this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 90.655 (1991). See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Eliminate Separate Licensing of End Users of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-589A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-589A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-589A1.txt
  • that the above-captioned proceedings ARE TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Glenn T. Reynolds Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. U S West Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 99-2479, File Nos. E-97-40, E-97-19 (rel. Nov. 8, 1999) (November 8 Order). 47 U.S.C. § 208. November 8 Order at ¶ 40. See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.722. MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. U S West Communications, Inc., MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., et al., Supplemental Complaint of MCI Telecommunications Corporation Regarding Damages, File Nos. E-97-40, E-97-19 (filed January 7, 2000). MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. U S West Communications, Inc., MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., et al., Motion for Withdrawal, File Nos. E-97-40,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-952A1.txt
  • any event, we have fully considered each of the arguments raised and are unpersuaded that we should depart from the conclusions reached by the Commission in the prior orders. Accordingly, we will grant the complaints in part, and deny them in part, as detailed in the Liability Order. Sprint and MCI may file supplemental complaints for damages pursuant to section 1.722 of our rules. As stated in the Liability Order, the appropriate measure of damages is ``the difference between the amounts [the IXCs] paid to the LECs for CCL charges and the amount they would have paid had the LECs properly assessed CCL charges for the optional services at issue, plus interest.'' If a complainant files a damages claim, its claim
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1044A1.txt
  • during the hearing. Defendants may, however, demonstrate that the improperly assessed EUCL charges were not paid. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 203(c), 206, 207 and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,154 (i), 154 (j), 201 (b), 203(c), 206, 207, and 208 and sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.722(d)(1) and 69.105(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.722(d)(1) and 69.105(a), that the above-captioned complaints ARE DESIGNATED FOR A CONSOLIDATED HEARING before an Administrative Law Judge, at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the following issues: (1) To determine the relevant time period of each complaint pursuant to section 415 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1829A1.txt
  • No. 01-173 File No. E-97-40s HEARING DESIGNATION ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2001 Released: August 1, 2001 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: Introduction Pursuant to the Commission's rules, we issue this consolidated Hearing Designation Order (``HDO'') to initiate hearings to resolve the supplemental complaints for damages filed by complainants AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') and MCI Telecommunications, Inc. (``MCI'') pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §1.722. We have previously ruled that U S WEST Communications, Inc. (``U S WEST'') violated section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), by offering its 1-800-4USWEST calling platform service (the ``Service''). This HDO refers to an Administrative Law Judge (``ALJ'') the issue of the extent to which AT&T and MCI are entitled to damages from U S
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1136A1.txt
  • for Review. Metrocall again represented that the extension would help facilitate ongoing settlement discussions and that Concord had consented to the requested extension. 4. On April 9, 2002, Metrocall filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time, requesting a brief extension of time, up to and including April 22, 2002, to file a supplemental complaint for damages. Pursuant to section 1.722(e) of the Commission's rules, Metrocall's supplemental complaint for damages was due sixty days after release of the Liability Order, or April 9, 2002. Metrocall reported in its consent motion that the parties had reached a tentative agreement to settle their dispute and, thus, the extension would conserve the parties' and the Commission's resources and would help facilitate conclusion of the
• 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
  • Complainants for all compensable completed calls originating from Complainants' Payphones for the period beginning on the date of Defendant's assumption of liability through November 23, 2001.'' The Joint Stipulation, therefore, resolves the liability stage of this proceeding, and indicates that issues regarding damages are to be determined subsequently. Based upon the Joint Stipulation, we grant the complaint. Pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, Complainants must file a supplemental complaint for damages within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. The supplemental complaint for damages must comply 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,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-301A1.txt
  • on Metrocall solely for the use of numbers, in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. Thus, we grant Metrocall's complaint to the extent that it claims that Concord imposes recurring charges for the use of DID numbers. The extent to which Concord may owe Metrocall damages for this unlawful conduct may be determined in a subsequent proceeding under section 1.722 of the Commission's rules. C. Concord May Charge Metrocall for DID Facilities to the Extent That They Are Used to Transport Transiting Traffic. Metrocall also claims that Concord violates section 201(b) of the Act and section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules by charging Metrocall for DID facilities. We agree with Metrocall, in part. The Commission's rules state that a CMRS
• 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
  • originating from payphones, including access code calls and calls to subscriber toll-free numbers. 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300 et seq. Complaint at 2, 11, ¶¶ 2, 22. Complaint at 3, ¶ 4; 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. § 276. Complaint at 3, 11, ¶¶ 5, ¶ 23; Attachment 2. Complaint at 13, ¶ 33. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722. See APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Letter from Douglas R. Hirsch, Counsel for TS Interactive, to Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, File No. EB-02-MD-012 (May 15, 2002); APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Letter from Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Albert H. Kramer, Counsel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-886A1.txt
  • for Review. Metrocall again represented that the extension would help facilitate ongoing settlement discussions and that Concord had consented to the requested extension. 4. On April 9, 2002, Metrocall filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time, requesting a brief extension of time, up to and including April 22, 2002, to file a supplemental complaint for damages. Pursuant to section 1.722(e) of the Commission's rules, Metrocall's supplemental complaint for damages was due sixty days after release of the Liability Order, or April 9, 2002. Metrocall reported in its consent motion that the parties had reached a tentative agreement to settle their dispute and, thus, the extension would conserve the parties' and the Commission's resources and would help facilitate conclusion of the
• 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
  • Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 21, 2001, Core Communications, Inc. (``Core'') filed a formal complaint against Verizon Maryland Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In its Complaint, Core alleged, inter alia, that Verizon violated section 251(c) of the Act. The Complaint requested that Commission staff bifurcate the proceeding pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules, and address liability issues prior to consideration of damages issues. In the Liability Order, the Commission granted the Complaint in part, finding that Verizon had violated section 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act. In accordance with Core's request that the proceeding be bifurcated, the Liability Order did not address the issue of damages. After the Liability Order was
• 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
  • its consent,'' and that such ``willful misconduct'' violated sections 1, 201(b), and 251(e)(1) of the Act, as well as several Commission orders concerning toll free number assignments. Staton asks for the immediate return of the All Eights Number, and states that upon a determination of liability, it will seek damages from MCI and Sprint ``in a separate proceeding under Section 1.722 of the FCC's rules.'' A. Procedural Issues 10. We begin by addressing two procedural issues. First, MCI raises as an affirmative defense the requirement under Section 415(b) of the Act that all complaints against carriers for the recovery of damages be filed with the Commission within two years from the time the cause of action accrues. According to MCI, Staton's
• 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
  • Released: June 10, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Order, we grant an unopposed supplemental complaint for damages (``supplemental complaint'' or ``complaint for damages'') filed by APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') against TS Interactive, Inc. (``TS Interactive'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.722 of the Commission's rules. In the liability phase of this proceeding, we granted a motion for default judgment against TS Interactive, thereby resolving a formal complaint alleging that TS Interactive breached section 276 of the Act by failing to pay dial-around compensation to Complainants for certain categories of completed coinless calls originating from payphones, in violation of Commission rules and
• 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
  • to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In its Complaint, Core alleged that Verizon had violated, inter alia, section 251(c)(2) of the Act and Verizon's interconnection agreement with Core by unreasonably delaying interconnection with Core and by failing to inform Core in a timely manner of the delay. Pursuant to Core's unopposed request under section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules, Commission staff bifurcated the complaint proceeding, and addressed liability issues prior to consideration of damages issues. Discovery in the liability phase of the proceeding was conducted over a period of more than six months, with both Core and Commission staff requesting that Verizon produce documents regarding Core's interconnection with Verizon. Verizon produced 23 documents. On April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3087A1.txt
  • and proposes that the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') instruct AT&T not to file its supplemental complaint for damages until 60 days after a decision on the merits of the appeal, which Innovative intend to file on October 12, 2004, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted. Innovative further requests that the Bureau waive the 60-day filing deadline in section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, and extend the deadline until 60 days after a decision on the merits by the appellate court has become final and all appellate remedies have been exhausted. Innovative argues that such action is warranted for purposes of administrative efficiency and conservation of resources. 3. On September 24, 2004, AT&T filed a Response
• 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
  • of Edward Keenan) at 6, ¶ 21. Joint Statement at 12, ¶ 27 (Chronology citing Complaint, Exhibit 29). Joint Statement at 12, ¶ 27 (Chronology citing Complaint, Exhibit 30). Joint Statement at 12, ¶ 27 (Chronology citing Complaint, Exhibit 31). Complaint at 6, ¶ 14. Complaint at 7-13, ¶¶ 15-36. Complaint at 22-25, ¶¶ 59-79. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(d), the Complaint requested that a determination of damages be made in a separate proceeding subsequent to the proceeding in which the determination of liability and prospective relief are made. Complaint at 26-27, ¶ 82. Verizon New York Inc.'s Answer to Broadview Networks, Inc.'s Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-021 (filed Jan. 29, 2004) (``Answer''). See, e.g., Answer at 27. Reply of
• 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
  • 16. Given that the Complaint expressly links section 276 and the relevant Commission orders, we construe Complainants' allegations that NIP violated the orders implementing 276 to be tantamount to an allegation that NIP violated section 276. This Order addresses only whether NIP violated the Act, and not whether Complainants are entitled to damages, because Complainants exercised their right under rule 1.722, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, to bifurcate a damages determination from the liability determination. Complaint at 1-2. Complaint at 2-3, ¶ 1; Revised Joint Statement, File No. EB-03-MD-011, at 6, ¶ 9 (filed Oct. 22, 2003) (``Revised Joint Statement''). Although most sections of the Revised Joint Statement have numbered paragraphs, some do not. In instances where the Revised Joint Statement has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.txt
  • in the Waiver Motion but in the Formal Liability Complaint. In its formal complaint filed on June 3, 2003, APCC asked that the issue of liability be addressed first, and that the issue of damages be decided in a subsequent phase of the proceeding if APCC prevailed in the first phase. Formal Liability Complaint at 1-2. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722 (providing for such ``bifurcation'' of liability and damages determinations). During the liability phase of this proceeding, we deferred ruling on the instant Waiver Motion until the damages phase (if any), because the outcome of the Motion would affect only the amount of damages, not NET's liability. APCC Services, et al. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Notice of
• 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
  • these informal complaints have been definitively addressed, it is not necessary to require parties to file lengthy formal complaints and answers complete with legal analyses. Under the unique circumstances here, we expedite and streamline the process for converting these 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
• 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
  • Services, LLP (collectively, ``Network'') to stay pending appeal the effect of the Commission's Damages Order in this proceeding. For the following reasons, we conclude that Network has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating entitlement to such interim equitable relief. Procedural background: Pursuant to sections 201(b) and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Rule 1.722, the Damages Order granted the supplemental complaint filed against Network by the above-named Complainants (collectively, ``APCC''), and directed Network to pay APCC approximately $2.8 million in payphone compensation, plus prejudgment interest, within 90 days of the Damages Order's release on February 23, 2007. On April 12, 2007, Network petitioned for review of the Damages Order in the United States Court
• 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
  • 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and several Commission orders dealing with the assignment of toll-free numbers. DeMoss requests: (1) that the toll-free numbers be re-assigned to DeMoss; (2) that the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') fine Sprint one million dollars ($1,000,000) for its alleged misrepresentations to the Commission; and (3) that we conduct a separate proceeding pursuant to section 1.722 of the rules to determine damages. For the reasons set forth below, we find that Sprint violated section 201(b) when it negligently disconnected the AMERICA toll-free numbers on July 18, 2003. With respect to the remaining alleged violations, we find that DeMoss has failed to satisfy his burden of proof. Because we have found liability in this bifurcated proceeding, DeMoss
• 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
  • The Complaint On February 11, 2008, Complainants filed the Complaint, alleging that the Verizon customer retention marketing practices described above violate sections 222(b), 222(a), and 201(b) of the Act. Complainants seek an order enjoining Verizon from continuing such customer retention marketing. Complainants also seek an award of damages, but deferred that determination to a separate, subsequent proceeding pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules. LEGAL ANALYSIS Complainants Have Not Established a Violation of Section 222(b). Verizon Does Not Receive the Proprietary Information for ``Purposes of Providing Any Telecommunications Service'' Within the Meaning of Section 222(b). Section 222(b) provides that ``[a] telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use
• 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
  • III, XIV, XVIII (§ 64.2401(d)) and XXI of the Complaint. See Second Supplemental Joint Status Report of Complainant and Defendants, File No. EB-05-MD-013 (filed Jan. 23, 2006) (``Second Supplemental Joint Status Report'') at 2-3, ¶ 2; 5, ¶ 9. See also Supplemental Joint Statement at 8, ¶ 25. Thus, we hereby dismiss those counts without prejudice. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(d). MAP erroneously cited to rule 1.722(h) in its Complaint. Complaint at 7-8, ¶ 14. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(e). See, e.g., Complaint at 1-2, ¶ 1; Joint Statement of Complainant and Defendants, File No. EB-05-MD-013 (filed Sept. 16, 2005) (``Joint Statement'') at 4, ¶ 12; MAP Mobile Communications, Inc. Responsive Brief on Selected Issues, File No. EB-05-MD-013 (filed Mar. 8,
• 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
  • with pursuing this complaint.'' First, we note that the ``expenses of attempting to opt-out'' do not encompass all the expenses of pursuing this complaint. The evidence indicates that the one improperly handled do-not-call request was promptly rectified when Smith repeated that request in June 2004. Thus, Complainants have not provided the necessary information to prove damages as required by section 1.722(h) of the Commission's rules. Moreover, we find that Complainants' legal and administrative costs incurred as a pro se litigant are analogous to attorney fees. Because the Act and the Commission's rules do not allow the Commission to award attorney fees or costs, we decline to award such costs as damages here. 27. We also deny Complainant's request that we impose
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284321A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284321A2.txt
  • 0.332.2 0.117.0 50.4 $3,726,896 0.0 8.2 0.040.8 51.0 $15,270 0.0 0.0 0.064.4 35.6 303,214,551 0.416.5 0.525.5 57.1 Vietnam $37,303,593 0.049.5 1.013.6 35.9 $864,182 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.1 96.8 $3,917 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 98.6 304,071,567 0.044.6 1.216.5 37.8 Asia $1,560,548,856 18.529.7 1.613.8 36.4 $121,196,919 8.214.1 0.025.6 52.1 $31,669,260 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 99.1 18,380,075,286 25.519.5 1.518.6 35.0 Australia $60,253,653 2.132.9 1.722.5 40.8 $5,621,850 0.017.2 0.024.2 58.6 $1,352,051 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 1,021,641,078 1.512.5 5.226.0 54.7 Cook Islands $446,994 0.469.7 0.0 8.4 21.6 $263 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 557,237 0.438.3 0.015.2 46.1 Fiji $9,780,762 0.248.3 0.015.4 36.1 $209,456 0.0 1.9 0.029.6 68.5 $8,238 0.0 0.0 0.096.7 3.3 46,241,400 0.138.7 0.028.0 33.2 French Polynesia $1,803,969 0.011.4 0.047.6 40.9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-194A1.doc
  • . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to §§ 1, 4(i), 201, 251, 252, and 332 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1, 4(i), 201, 251, 252, 332, that the formal complaint filed by complainant TSR defendant U S West IS GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as provided in this Order; 44. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to § 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, that Complainants MAY FILE within 60 days any supplemental complaint for damages. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary In the Matters of TSR Wireless, LLC, et al., Complainants, v. U S West Communications, Inc., et al., Defendants Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth I dissent from this Memorandum Opinion and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-371A1.txt
  • ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 271 of Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, 271, that the Formal Complaint filed by MCI Telecommunications Corporation IS GRANTED to the extent that it alleges that the 1-800-AMERITECH service violates section 271. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCI, pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, MAY FILE a supplemental complaint concerning damages relating to our findings in this Order within 60 days of the date of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Effective September 14, 1998, MCI Telecommunications Corp. merged with WorldCom, Inc. to form MCI WorldCom, Inc. All references herein to MCI after
• 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
  • to switch-based resellers. Rather, with respect to the latter traffic, the Defendants must provide Verizon information that enables it to identify resellers responsible for compensation. 21. 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, and sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.722, 64.1300, and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.722, 64.1300, and 64.1310, that Verizon and the Defendants must file a joint statement consistent with this Order within thirty (30) days after the Order is released. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary The original named complainants in these actions were Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc.; Bell Atlantic-Maryland, Inc.;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-194A1.txt
  • §§ 1, 4(i), 4(j), 207, 208, and 209 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 207, 208, and 209, and section 20.11 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 20.11, that the formal complaint filed by AirTouch Cellular against Pacific Bell is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AirTouch Cellular, pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, MAY FILE a supplemental complaint concerning damages relating to our findings in this Order within 60 days of the date of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, SBC Communications acquired Pacific Bell. 47 U.S.C. § 208 (1991 & West Supp. 1999). 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-234A1.txt
  • Br. at 3-4. AT&T Complaint Exs. 1-42 ¶ 5; Answer at i. Appel Cert. Ex. A. Appel Cert. Ex. A, at Attachment E; Answer at ii. Appel Cert. Ex. A, at Attachment E. The record does not reveal whether CCI paid the shortfall charges. See, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 12, 13. Complaint ¶ 22(c). Complaint ¶ 22(b) (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.722). Appel Cert. ¶¶ 4-5; Complaint Exs. 1-42 ¶¶ 4-5. Complaint Exs. 1-42 ¶¶ 3-11. Answer at ii, ¶¶ 27, 33; Inga Cert. ¶ 25, and Ex. A. Answer ¶¶ 9-1, 23-26. W&C also submitted a counter complaint alleging that AT&T's imposition of the shortfall charges violated section 201(b). AT&T Corp. v. Winback & Conserve Program, Inc., Counter Complaint of Winback
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-279A1.txt
  • at 15, para. 34. 52 Id. at 15, para. 34 n.52. 53 Liability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11167, para. 1. Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-279 9 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 206-209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 206-209, and section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, that Metrocall, Inc.'s amended supplemental complaint for damages against Pacific Bell Telephone Company and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary
• 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
  • circumstances, to bifurcate formal complaints into two separate complaints: (1) an initial complaint for liability and any prospective relief, and (2) a supplemental complaint for damages. Our experience in implementing the rules regarding supplemental complaints for damages indicates that certain revisions are appropriate to clarify and modify how the supplemental complaint process operates. We start with several revisions to section 1.722 of our rules. First, we amend section 1.722 to state expressly what the Commission concluded in the First Report and Order: in a proceeding to which no statutory deadline applies, the Commission may, on its own motion, bifurcate the proceeding so that only liability and prospective relief issues are before the Commission initially, and damage issues come before the Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.txt
  • 201(a), 202(a), 214(a), and 251(a) of the Act. Total seeks a Commission order permanently restraining and prohibiting AT&T from preventing its subscribers from completing telephone calls to Total's end-user customer. In addition, Total and Atlas seek the recovery of damages arising from AT&T's blocking of traffic, and reserve the right to file a supplemental complaint for damages pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules. In response to Total's complaint, AT&T answered, inter alia, that the Act does not require AT&T to purchase unwanted access services from Atlas and Total. In addition, AT&T filed a cross-complaint alleging that (1) Atlas and Total are violating section 201(b) of the Act by engaging in a scheme to circumvent the Commission's rules regarding dominant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-105A1.txt
  • Dec. 8, 2000) (``Supplemental Submission'') at 2. Letter dated January 19, 2001 from William H. Davenport, Special Counsel, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Russell M. Blau and Michael L. Shor, counsel for Starpower, and Lawrence W. Katz and Aaron M. Panner, counsel for Verizon, File Nos. EB-00-MD-19, -20 (rel. Jan. 19, 2001) at 1. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722. See, e.g., Starpower-Verizon Virginia Answer at 1-2; Starpower-Verizon South Answer at 1-2. See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic, Order on Remand and Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 9151, 9160, ¶ 16 (2001) (``Order on Remand'') (citing Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-115A1.txt
  • ¶ 54. Complaint at 7, ¶ 14; at 10, ¶ 21; Marpin Brief at 16; Letter from Eric Fishman, counsel for Marpin, to Lisa J. Saks, Attorney, Market Dispute Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (filed Jan. 18, 2002) (clarifying argument made on page 16 of Marpin Brief). Complaint at 26-27, ¶¶ 62, 63. Marpin requested, pursuant to section 1.722(c)(2) of the formal complaint rules, that the Commission determine damages in a separate proceeding following its determination of liability and prospective relief. 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(c)(2); Complaint at 27, ¶ 63 (mistakenly identifying the applicable rule as ``§ 1.722(b)(2)''). Answer at 1, n.1. See id. at 6-7, ¶¶ 1-5. Joint Motion to Dismiss of Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-133A1.txt
  • at 56-66. Answer at 52-54, ¶¶ 195-201. Letter dated May 9, 2001 from David Strickland, Attorney Advisor, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to J.G. Harrington and Laura Rocklein, counsel for Cox, and Lawrence W. Katz, Aaron M. Panner and Scott G. Angstreich, counsel for Verizon South, File No. EB-01-MD-006 (filed May 9, 2001) at 1. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(c). The NXX code is the three-digit switch entity indicator that is defined by the ``D,'' ``E'' and ``F'' digits of a 10-digit telephone number within the North American Numbering Plan. Each NXX code contains 10,000 station numbers. Complaint, Exhibit B (Interconnection Agreement), ¶ II.62. Letter dated May 24, 2001, from David Strickland, Attorney Advisor, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau,
• 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
  • that the current version does not materially differ from the version in effect at the relevant time. The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English (Oxford University Press 1999) at 665. Beehive Initial Brief at 23, quoting NECA Tariff F.C.C. No. 5, § 2.6 at 2-61 (emphasis added). Beehive Initial Brief at 23-24. AT&T Complaint at 13. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722 (1996). Beehive Initial Brief at 22; AT&T Reply Brief at 23-24; Beehive Reply Brief at 27. Beehive alleges that the Filed Rate Doctrine bars AT&T's claim of overcharges based on charges for uncompleted calls. Beehive Answer at 8, ¶¶ 50-52. This defense is patently meritless. To the extent that Beehive billed AT&T in violation of its Tariff and the Act,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-219A1.txt
  • Statement of WorldCom and Verizon, File No. EB-02-MD-017 (filed May 13, 2002) (``Supp. Joint Statement'') at 14 and 17. This order refers to the individual rates for these elements collectively and generally as ``switching rates.'' Complaint at ¶¶ 26, 144. WorldCom intends to seek damages and other relief in a supplemental complaint proceeding. Complaint, ¶ 34. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.722(d) and (e). Investigation by the Department of Telecommunications and Energy on its own Motion into the Appropriate Pricing, based upon Total Element Long-Run Incremental Costs, for Unbundled Network Elements and Combinations of Unbundled Network Elements, and the Appropriate Avoided-Cost Discount for Verizon New England, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Massachusetts' Resale Services in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Order, D.T.E. 01-20 (rel. July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-223A1.txt
  • Inc. v. FCC, 259 F.3d 790 (D.C. Cir. 2001). See also Bell Atlantic Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8115-17, ¶¶ 6-9. Complainants' Initial Brief on the Reseller Issue, File No. 98-49 (filed July 10, 2000) at 1. Bell Atlantic Order, 16 FCC Rcd 8113, ¶ 1. Bell Atlantic Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8121, ¶ 19. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(i)(4) (following a Commission determination regarding a damages computation method or formula, the Commission may order the parties to submit, within thirty days of the release date of the damages order (1) a statement detailing the parties' agreement as to the amount of damages; (2) a statement that the parties are continuing to negotiate in good faith and a request that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-314A1.txt
  • documentation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Qwest Petition for Reconsideration, the SBC Application for Review, and the TDS Request for Clarification are DISMISSED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Communications Vending Corporation of Arizona, Inc., IMR Capital Corporation, Indiana Telcom Corporation, Inc., National Telecoin Corporation, Inc., NSC Communications Public Services Corporation, and Payphone Systems, in accordance with Section 1.722 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, MAY FILE supplemental complaints concerning damages after the Bureau's release of a Hearing Designation Order in this proceeding. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Appendix A 1) Communications Vending Corporation of Arizona, Inc. v. Citizens Communications Company f/k/a Citizens Utilities Company and Citizens Telecommunications Company d/b/a Citizens Telecom, Supplement to Formal
• 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
  • File No. EB-00-MD-19 ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: November 5, 2003 Released: November 7, 2003 By the Commission: introduction In this Order, we grant a supplemental complaint for damages filed by Starpower Communications, LLC (``Starpower'') against Verizon South Inc. (``Verizon South'') pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and section 1.722 of the Commission's rules. In the liability phase of this proceeding, the Commission found that the parties' interconnection agreement requires Verizon South to pay reciprocal compensation for Starpower's delivery of traffic originated by Verizon South's customers and bound for Starpower's Internet service provider (``ISP'') customers. Consistent with that finding, we award damages to Starpower for reciprocal compensation that Verizon South
• 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
  • approximately 63% utilization rate in 2000, Verizon's own existing traffic, and its ability to add new dial-tone customers, were not affected by the K36/K43 capacity exhaust. Id. By ``Verizon's own traffic,'' we mean traffic between Verizon's end-user customers, and traffic from Verizon end-user customers to long-distance carriers. Complaint at 8-9, ¶¶ 22-31. Core states that it will, pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, file a supplemental complaint for damages if successful in establishing liability. Complaint at 9-10, ¶ 33. Answer at 12, ¶ 35; Answer, Ex. B (Verizon's Legal Analysis) at 9; Opening Brief of Verizon Maryland, Inc., File No. EB-01-MD-007 (filed Jan. 18, 2002) (``Verizon's Opening Br.'') at 13-14; Reply Brief of Verizon Maryland
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-195A1.txt
  • formal complaint relates back to AT&T's September 10, 2001 informal complaint for purposes of tolling the applicable two-year statute of limitations set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 415(b). The formal complaint alleges that Vitelco violated section 201(b) of the Act by reaping access earnings over its 11.65% maximum allowable rate of return during the 1997-1998 Monitoring Period. Pursuant to section 1.722(d) of our rules, AT&T ``bifurcated'' this proceeding and requests a determination regarding only liability at this time. AT&T seeks a finding of liability for damages only with respect to Vitelco's 1997 earnings, however. AT&T concedes that section 204(a)(3) precludes any finding of liability for damages regarding Vitelco's 1998 earnings. In response, Vitelco asserts that AT&T's claims for damages are barred
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-278A1.txt
  • not to claims for prospective relief. AT&T's Complaint seeks prospective relief as well as damages. Therefore, section 415(b) does not bar AT&T's Complaint. Moreover, we need not decide in this Order whether or to what extent section 415(b) limits AT&T's ability to recover damages, because AT&T ``bifurcated'' its damages request from its liability and prospective relief requests pursuant to section 1.722(d) of our rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(d). We will address those questions if and when AT&T files a supplemental complaint for damages. According to BellSouth, we should not follow the Commission orders holding that section 415(b) applies only to claims for damages, because court decisions and other Commission orders have stated that the running of the statute of limitations in
• 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
  • has previously recognized that certain novel arrangements for conveying assets have been deemed to convey possessory interests. Reply at 5. We agree with the Bureau that there is no material resemblance between Network's agreements with the Debit Card Providers and the arrangements listed in Network's Reply. See Bureau Liability Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10-11, ¶ 21. 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(d). Complaint at 24. APCC has now filed a supplemental complaint for damages. Supplemental Complaint for Damages, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed April 4, 2005) (``Supplemental Complaint''). APCC v. NetworkIP, LLC, Letter from Radhika Karmarkar, FCC, to Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (rel. July 8, 200[3]); APCC v. NetworkIP, LLC, Letter from Radhika Karmarkar, FCC, to Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (rel. June 13,
• 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
  • at issue, that jurisdictional question has long since been resolved in favor of Commission jurisdiction. Indeed, the Bureau Order so held, and Qwest did not challenge that holding in court. Second, as a factual matter, Qwest's defense that the statute of limitations has expired on any damages award is not justified at present, because Mountain exercised its right under section 1.722 of the Commission's rules to reserve damages issues for a subsequent proceeding. Moreover, even if Qwest's statute of limitations defense were valid, it would bar neither the non-damages claim for relief resolved in this Order nor Mountain's claim for damages arising from ``economic harm'' and other injuries allegedly incurred since September 11, 1998. Thus, it is appropriate to defer briefing
• 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
  • grant a supplemental complaint for damages filed by APCC Services, Inc., Data Net Systems, LLC, Davel Communications, Inc., Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services, and Intera Communications Corp. (collectively, ``Complainants'' or ``APCC'') against NetworkIP, LLC, and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP (collectively, ``Defendants'' or ``Network'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and section 1.722 of the Commission's rules. Complainants allege that, under the Commission's payphone compensation rules, Network owes Complainants ``dial-around'' compensation and prejudgment interest for 11,622,941 payphone calls completed during the period October 1, 1999 through November 22, 2001. For the reasons explained below, we agree with Complainants and award damages in the principal amount of $2,789,505.84, plus prejudgment interest at an annual
• 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
  • LSR. The Complaint On February 11, 2008, Complainants filed the Complaint alleging, inter alia, that the Verizon customer retention marketing practices described above violate section 222(b) of the Act. Complainants seek an order enjoining Verizon from continuing such customer retention marketing. Complainants also seek an award of damages, but defer that determination to a separate, subsequent proceeding pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules. Thus, this Order addresses only the question of Verizon's alleged liability. LEGAL ANALYSIS Section 222(b) provides that ``[a] telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use such information only for such purpose, and shall not use such information for its own marketing efforts.'' Thus,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.txt
  • U.S.C. § 203(c). Section 201(b) requires that ``all charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with . . . communication service shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.'' 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). Complaint at 27, ¶ 59. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(e). This Order contains an abbreviated background section. A full recitation of the facts appears in paragraphs 3 through 13 of the October 2 Order, which we incorporate by reference. October 2 Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17974-77, ¶¶ 3-13. Complaint at 4, ¶ 4; Joint Statement, File No. EB-07-MD-001 (filed June 6, 2007) (``Joint Statement'') at 1, ¶ 2. Joint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-43A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-43A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-43A1.txt
  • through 9 of the Second Recon Order, 24 FCC. Rcd at 14802-04, ¶¶ 2-9. Formal Complaint of Qwest Communications Corp., File No. EB-07-MD-001 (filed May 2, 2007) (``Complaint''). Complaint at 1. Initial Liability Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17976, ¶ 9. Initial Liability Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17974, ¶ 3. Complaint at 27, ¶ 59. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(d)(2) (A complainant seeking damages in a separate proceeding must ``[s]tate clearly and unequivocally that the complainant wishes a determination of damages to be made in a proceeding that is separate from and subsequent to the proceeding in which the determinations of liability and prospective relief will be made.''). Initial Liability Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17980-83, ¶¶ 21-25; 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.txt
  • 205 (authorizing Commission to ``prescribe just and reasonable charges'')); id. at 37-38, ¶ 82 (Prayer for Relief). Sprint states that it ``is not requesting damages,'' Complaint at 4, ¶ 5, but adds that it ``reserves the right to seek damages at a later time,'' id. at 4 n.8. Sprint's conflicting statements fail to comply with the requirements of Commission rule 1.722(d) regarding requests for damages in a subsequent proceeding. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(d) (requiring that requests for damages be ``clear and unequivocal''). 47 C.F.R. § 61.26; Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Local Exchange Carriers, Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 9108 (2004) (``CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order''). 47 C.F.R.
• 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 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. We note that the Commission's rules already provide for the use of petitions for declaratory ruling for the purpose of ``terminating a controversy or removing uncertainty'' and the potential use of this vehicle to address data roaming controversies therefore does not require PRA approval. See 47 U.S.C. § 209. Section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, which addresses the recovery of damages in a complaint proceeding, is not applicable to data roaming complaints. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.730. See T-Mobile Comments at 20; SouthernLINC Reply Comments at 28; SouthernLINC Oct. 21, 2010 Ex Parte at 12-13; see also Bright House Comments at 14 (urging the Commission to
• 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
  • Brief (``Calabro Dep.''); Deposition of Jeffrey D. Owens, attached as Ex. 25 to AT&T Initial Brief (``Owens Dep.''); Facts to Which YMax Refused to Stipulate in the Joint Statement But Which Mr. Pavol Verified as True in His Deposition, attached as Appendix B to AT&T Initial Brief (``Appendix B''). AT&T elected to bifurcate its claims for damages pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(d). Therefore, this Order addresses AT&T's liability claims only. Complaint at 8, ¶ 13. At an appropriate time, AT&T may file a supplemental complaint for damages. 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(e). See Reply Legal Analysis at 9; AT&T Initial Brief at 4-5 & App. A; AT&T Reply Brief at 12. We therefore dismiss without
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011044.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011044.html
  • during the hearing. Defendants may, however, demonstrate that the improperly assessed EUCL charges were not paid. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 203(c), 206, 207 and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,154 (i), 154 (j), 201 (b), 203(c), 206, 207, and 208 and sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.722(d)(1) and 69.105(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.722(d)(1) and 69.105(a), that the above-captioned complaints ARE DESIGNATED FOR A CONSOLIDATED HEARING before an Administrative Law Judge, at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the following issues: (1) To determine the relevant time period of each complaint pursuant to section 415 of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • 201(a), 202(a), 214(a), and 251(a) of the Act. Total seeks a Commission order permanently restraining and prohibiting AT&T from preventing its subscribers from completing telephone calls to Total's end-user customer. In addition, Total and Atlas seek the recovery of damages arising from AT&T's blocking of traffic, and reserve the right to file a supplemental complaint for damages pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules. In response to Total's complaint, AT&T answered, inter alia, that the Act does not require AT&T to purchase unwanted access services from Atlas and Total. In addition, AT&T filed a cross-complaint alleging that (1) Atlas and Total are violating section 201(b) of the Act by engaging in a scheme to circumvent the Commission's rules regarding dominant
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.html
  • to switch-based resellers. Rather, with respect to the latter traffic, the Defendants must provide Verizon information that enables it to identify resellers responsible for compensation. 21. 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, and sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.722, 64.1300, and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.722, 64.1300, and 64.1310, that Verizon and the Defendants must file a joint statement consistent with this Order within thirty (30) days after the Order is released. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary The original named complainants in these actions were Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc.; Bell Atlantic-Maryland, Inc.;
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01194.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01194.html
  • §§ 1, 4(i), 4(j), 207, 208, and 209 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 207, 208, and 209, and section 20.11 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 20.11, that the formal complaint filed by AirTouch Cellular against Pacific Bell is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AirTouch Cellular, pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, MAY FILE a supplemental complaint concerning damages relating to our findings in this Order within 60 days of the date of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, SBC Communications acquired Pacific Bell. 47 U.S.C. § 208 (1991 & West Supp. 1999). 47
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01234.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01234.html
  • Br. at 3-4. AT&T Complaint Exs. 1-42 ¶ 5; Answer at i. Appel Cert. Ex. A. Appel Cert. Ex. A, at Attachment E; Answer at ii. Appel Cert. Ex. A, at Attachment E. The record does not reveal whether CCI paid the shortfall charges. See, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 12, 13. Complaint ¶ 22(c). Complaint ¶ 22(b) (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.722). Appel Cert. ¶¶ 4-5; Complaint Exs. 1-42 ¶¶ 4-5. Complaint Exs. 1-42 ¶¶ 3-11. Answer at ii, ¶¶ 27, 33; Inga Cert. ¶ 25, and Ex. A. Answer ¶¶ 9-1, 23-26. W&C also submitted a counter complaint alleging that AT&T's imposition of the shortfall charges violated section 201(b). AT&T Corp. v. Winback & Conserve Program, Inc., Counter Complaint of Winback
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01279.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01279.pdf
  • on our analysis above, we deny Metrocall's claims for compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages. We also deny Metrocall's demands that we revisit our conclusions in the Liability Order. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 206-209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 206-209, and section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.722, that Metrocall, Inc.'s amended supplemental complaint for damages against Pacific Bell Telephone Company and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary _________________________ 1 TSR Wireless, LLC v. U S West Communications, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 11166 (2000) (``Liability Order''), petition for review denied sub nom. Qwest Corporation
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1136A1.html
  • for Review.8 Metrocall again represented that the extension would help facilitate ongoing settlement discussions and that Concord had consented to the requested extension.9 4. On April 9, 2002, Metrocall filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time,10 requesting a brief extension of time, up to and including April 22, 2002, to file a supplemental complaint for damages. Pursuant to section 1.722(e) of the Commission's rules,11 Metrocall's supplemental complaint for damages was due sixty days after release of the Liability Order, or April 9, 2002. Metrocall reported in its consent motion that the parties had reached a tentative agreement to settle their dispute and, thus, the extension would conserve the parties' and the Commission's resources and would help facilitate conclusion of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1470A1.html
  • for all compensable completed calls originating from Complainants' Payphones for the period beginning on the date of Defendant's assumption of liability through November 23, 2001.''4 The Joint Stipulation, therefore, resolves the liability stage of this proceeding, and indicates that issues regarding damages are to be determined subsequently.5 3. Based upon the Joint Stipulation, we grant the complaint. Pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules,6 Complainants must file a supplemental complaint for damages within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. The supplemental complaint for damages must 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
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-301A1.html
  • on Metrocall solely for the use of numbers, in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. Thus, we grant Metrocall's complaint to the extent that it claims that Concord imposes recurring charges for the use of DID numbers. The extent to which Concord may owe Metrocall damages for this unlawful conduct may be determined in a subsequent proceeding under section 1.722 of the Commission's rules.35 C. Concord May Charge Metrocall for DID Facilities to the Extent That They Are Used to Transport Transiting Traffic. Metrocall also claims that Concord violates section 201(b) of the Act and section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules by charging Metrocall for DID facilities.36 We agree with Metrocall, in part. The Commission's rules state that a CMRS
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3547A1.html
  • categories of completed coinless calls originating from payphones, including access code calls and calls to subscriber toll-free numbers. 47 C.F.R. 64.1300 et seq. 5 Complaint at 2, 11, 2, 22. 6 Complaint at 3, 4; 47 C.F.R. 64.1300 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 276. 7 Complaint at 3, 11, 5, 23; Attachment 2. 8 Complaint at 13, 33. See 47 C.F.R. 1.722. 9 See APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Letter from Douglas R. Hirsch, Counsel for TS Interactive, to Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, File No. EB-02-MD-012 (May 15, 2002); APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Letter from Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Albert H. Kramer,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-886A1.html
  • for Review.8 Metrocall again represented that the extension would help facilitate ongoing settlement discussions and that Concord had consented to the requested extension.9 4. On April 9, 2002, Metrocall filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time,10 requesting a brief extension of time, up to and including April 22, 2002, to file a supplemental complaint for damages. Pursuant to section 1.722(e) of the Commission's rules,11 Metrocall's supplemental complaint for damages was due sixty days after release of the Liability Order, or April 9, 2002. Metrocall reported in its consent motion that the parties had reached a tentative agreement to settle their dispute and, thus, the extension would conserve the parties' and the Commission's resources and would help facilitate conclusion of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-105A1.html
  • Dec. 8, 2000) (``Supplemental Submission'') at 2. 68 Letter dated January 19, 2001 from William H. Davenport, Special Counsel, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Russell M. Blau and Michael L. Shor, counsel for Starpower, and Lawrence W. Katz and Aaron M. Panner, counsel for Verizon, File Nos. EB-00-MD-19, -20 (rel. Jan. 19, 2001) at 1. See 47 C.F.R. 1.722. 69 See, e.g., Starpower-Verizon Virginia Answer at 1-2; Starpower-Verizon South Answer at 1-2. 70 See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic, Order on Remand and Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 9151, 9160, 16 (2001) (``Order on Remand'') (citing Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-115A1.html
  • at 22-23, 54. 25 Complaint at 7, 14; at 10, 21; Marpin Brief at 16; Letter from Eric Fishman, counsel for Marpin, to Lisa J. Saks, Attorney, Market Dispute Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (filed Jan. 18, 2002) (clarifying argument made on page 16 of Marpin Brief). 26 Complaint at 26-27, 62, 63. Marpin requested, pursuant to section 1.722(c)(2) of the formal complaint rules, that the Commission determine damages in a separate proceeding following its determination of liability and prospective relief. 47 C.F.R. 1.722(c)(2); Complaint at 27, 63 (mistakenly identifying the applicable rule as `` 1.722(b)(2)''). 27 Answer at 1, n.1. See id. at 6-7, 1-5. 28 Joint Motion to Dismiss of Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. and Cable
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-133A1.html
  • at 56-66. 51 Answer at 52-54, 195-201. 52 Letter dated May 9, 2001 from David Strickland, Attorney Advisor, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to J.G. Harrington and Laura Rocklein, counsel for Cox, and Lawrence W. Katz, Aaron M. Panner and Scott G. Angstreich, counsel for Verizon South, File No. EB-01-MD-006 (filed May 9, 2001) at 1. See 47 C.F.R. 1.722(c). 53 The NXX code is the three-digit switch entity indicator that is defined by the ``D,'' ``E'' and ``F'' digits of a 10-digit telephone number within the North American Numbering Plan. Each NXX code contains 10,000 station numbers. Complaint, Exhibit B (Interconnection Agreement), II.62. 54 Letter dated May 24, 2001, from David Strickland, Attorney Advisor, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-186A1.html
  • version does not materially differ from the version in effect at the relevant time. 31 The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English (Oxford University Press 1999) at 665. 32 Beehive Initial Brief at 23, quoting NECA Tariff F.C.C. No. 5, 2.6 at 2-61 (emphasis added). 33 Beehive Initial Brief at 23-24. 34 AT&T Complaint at 13. 35 See 47 C.F.R. 1.722 (1996). 36 Beehive Initial Brief at 22; AT&T Reply Brief at 23-24; Beehive Reply Brief at 27. 37 Beehive alleges that the Filed Rate Doctrine bars AT&T's claim of overcharges based on charges for uncompleted calls. Beehive Answer at 8, 50-52. This defense is patently meritless. To the extent that Beehive billed AT&T in violation of its Tariff and the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-219A1.html
  • Supplemental Joint Statement of WorldCom and Verizon, File No. EB-02-MD-017 (filed May 13, 2002) (``Supp. Joint Statement'') at 14 and 17. This order refers to the individual rates for these elements collectively and generally as ``switching rates.'' 4 Complaint at 26, 144. WorldCom intends to seek damages and other relief in a supplemental complaint proceeding. Complaint, 34. See 47 C.F.R. 1.722(d) and (e). 5 Investigation by the Department of Telecommunications and Energy on its own Motion into the Appropriate Pricing, based upon Total Element Long-Run Incremental Costs, for Unbundled Network Elements and Combinations of Unbundled Network Elements, and the Appropriate Avoided-Cost Discount for Verizon New England, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Massachusetts' Resale Services in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Order, D.T.E. 01-20 (rel.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-223A1.html
  • Telecommunications, Inc. v. FCC, 259 F.3d 790 (D.C. Cir. 2001). See also Bell Atlantic Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8115-17, 6-9. 14 Complainants' Initial Brief on the Reseller Issue, File No. 98-49 (filed July 10, 2000) at 1. 15 Bell Atlantic Order, 16 FCC Rcd 8113, 1. 16 Bell Atlantic Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8121, 19. See 47 C.F.R. 1.722(i)(4) (following a Commission determination regarding a damages computation method or formula, the Commission may order the parties to submit, within thirty days of the release date of the damages order (1) a statement detailing the parties' agreement as to the amount of damages; (2) a statement that the parties are continuing to negotiate in good faith and a request that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-314A1.html
  • IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Qwest Petition for Reconsideration, the SBC Application for Review, and the TDS Request for Clarification are DISMISSED as moot. 86. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Communications Vending Corporation of Arizona, Inc., IMR Capital Corporation, Indiana Telcom Corporation, Inc., National Telecoin Corporation, Inc., NSC Communications Public Services Corporation, and Payphone Systems, in accordance with Section 1.722 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.722, MAY FILE supplemental complaints concerning damages after the Bureau's release of a Hearing Designation Order in this proceeding. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Appendix A 1) Communications Vending Corporation of Arizona, Inc. v. Citizens Communications Company f/k/a Citizens Utilities Company and Citizens Telecommunications Company d/b/a Citizens Telecom, Supplement to Formal Complaint,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-278A1.html
  • ) ) Respondent. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: November 5, 2003 Released: November 7, 2003 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we grant a supplemental complaint for damages filed by Starpower Communications, LLC (``Starpower'') against Verizon South Inc. (``Verizon South'') 1 pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and section 1.722 of the Commission's rules.2 In the liability phase of this proceeding, the Commission found that the parties' interconnection agreement requires Verizon South to pay reciprocal compensation for Starpower's delivery of traffic originated by Verizon South's customers and bound for Starpower's Internet service provider (``ISP'') customers.3 Consistent with that finding, we award damages to Starpower for reciprocal compensation that Verizon South
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-83A1.html
  • separate charge not included in contracts with subscribers for exchange service." 47 U.S.C. 153(48) (defining "telephone toll service"). Complainants allege that Defendants' refusal to allow them to use the shared transport UNE for intraLATA toll calls has forced them to transport their intraLATA toll traffic to an interexchange carrier. Complaint at ii. 22 Complaint at 24-25, 99 (citing 47 C.F.R. 1.722(b)). 23 Complaint at 15, 41; 16, 48; 17, 55; 19, 63; 20, 71; 21, 77; 22, 83; 23, 89; 24, 96. 24 Answer at 2-5. 25 Answer, Ex. C (Defendants' Legal Analysis) at 15-55. 26 Answer at 19, 21; Revised Joint Statement at 2, 4. 27 Answer at 12-13, 13. 28 Answer at 3-5. 29 Answer at 2-5, Ex. C
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-96A1.html
  • approximately 63% utilization rate in 2000, Verizon's own existing traffic, and its ability to add new dial-tone customers, were not affected by the K36/K43 capacity exhaust. Id. By ``Verizon's own traffic,'' we mean traffic between Verizon's end-user customers, and traffic from Verizon end-user customers to long-distance carriers. 64 Complaint at 8-9, 22-31. Core states that it will, pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.722, file a supplemental complaint for damages if successful in establishing liability. Complaint at 9- 10, 33. 65 Answer at 12, 35; Answer, Ex. B (Verizon's Legal Analysis) at 9; Opening Brief of Verizon Maryland, Inc., File No. EB-01-MD-007 (filed Jan. 18, 2002) (``Verizon's Opening Br.'') at 13-14; Reply Brief of Verizon Maryland Inc.,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1307A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 21, 2001, Core Communications, Inc. (``Core'') filed a formal complaint1 against Verizon Maryland Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').2 In its Complaint, Core alleged, inter alia, that Verizon violated section 251(c) of the Act.3 The Complaint requested that Commission staff bifurcate the proceeding pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules,4 and address liability issues prior to consideration of damages issues.5 2. In the Liability Order, 6 the Commission granted the Complaint in part, finding that Verizon had violated section 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act.7 In accordance with Core's request that the proceeding be bifurcated, the Liability Order did not address the issue of damages.8 3. After the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1339A1.html
  • its consent,'' and that such ``willful misconduct'' violated sections 1, 201(b), and 251(e)(1) of the Act, as well as several Commission orders concerning toll free number assignments. Staton asks for the immediate return of the All Eights Number, and states that upon a determination of liability, it will seek damages from MCI and Sprint ``in a separate proceeding under Section 1.722 of the FCC's rules.''33 A. Procedural Issues 10. We begin by addressing two procedural issues. First, MCI raises as an affirmative defense the requirement under Section 415(b) of the Act that all complaints against carriers for the recovery of damages be filed with the Commission within two years from the time the cause of action accrues. According to MCI, Staton's
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1682A1.html
  • June 10, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we grant an unopposed supplemental complaint for damages (``supplemental complaint'' or ``complaint for damages'') filed by APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') against TS Interactive, Inc. (``TS Interactive'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'')1 and section 1.722 of the Commission's rules.2 In the liability phase of this proceeding, we granted a motion for default judgment against TS Interactive, thereby resolving a formal complaint alleging that TS Interactive breached section 276 of the Act3 by failing to pay dial- around compensation to Complainants for certain categories of completed coinless calls originating from payphones, in violation of Commission rules
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-259A1.html
  • to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').2 In its Complaint, Core alleged that Verizon had violated, inter alia, section 251(c)(2) of the Act3 and Verizon's interconnection agreement with Core by unreasonably delaying interconnection with Core and by failing to inform Core in a timely manner of the delay.4 Pursuant to Core's unopposed request under section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules,5 Commission staff bifurcated the complaint proceeding, and addressed liability issues prior to consideration of damages issues.6 Discovery in the liability phase of the proceeding was conducted over a period of more than six months, with both Core and Commission staff requesting that Verizon produce documents regarding Core's interconnection with Verizon.7 Verizon produced 23 documents.8 3. On
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3087A1.html
  • and proposes that the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') instruct AT&T not to file its supplemental complaint for damages until 60 days after a decision on the merits of the appeal, which Innovative intend to file on October 12, 2004, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted.4 Innovative further requests that the Bureau waive the 60-day filing deadline in section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.722, and extend the deadline until 60 days after a decision on the merits by the appellate court has become final and all appellate remedies have been exhausted.5 Innovative argues that such action is warranted for purposes of administrative efficiency and conservation of resources.6 3. On September 24, 2004, AT&T filed a Response to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3569A1.html
  • F (Declaration of Edward Keenan) at 6, 21. 25 Joint Statement at 12, 27 (Chronology citing Complaint, Exhibit 29). 26 Joint Statement at 12, 27 (Chronology citing Complaint, Exhibit 30). 27 Joint Statement at 12, 27 (Chronology citing Complaint, Exhibit 31). 28 Complaint at 6, 14. 29 Complaint at 7-13, 15-36. 30 Complaint at 22-25, 59-79. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.722(d), the Complaint requested that a determination of damages be made in a separate proceeding subsequent to the proceeding in which the determination of liability and prospective relief are made. Complaint at 26-27, 82. 31 Verizon New York Inc.'s Answer to Broadview Networks, Inc.'s Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-021 (filed Jan. 29, 2004) (``Answer''). 32 See, e.g., Answer at 27. 33
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-195A1.html
  • formal complaint relates back to AT&T's September 10, 2001 informal complaint for purposes of tolling the applicable two-year statute of limitations set forth in 47 U.S.C. 415(b).44 11. The formal complaint alleges that Vitelco violated section 201(b) of the Act by reaping access earnings over its 11.65% maximum allowable rate of return during the 1997-1998 Monitoring Period.45 Pursuant to section 1.722(d) of our rules,46 AT&T ``bifurcated'' this proceeding and requests a determination regarding only liability at this time.47 AT&T seeks a finding of liability for damages only with respect to Vitelco's 1997 earnings, however. AT&T concedes that section 204(a)(3) precludes any finding of liability for damages regarding Vitelco's 1998 earnings.48 12. In response, Vitelco asserts that AT&T's claims for damages are
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-278A1.html
  • not to claims for prospective relief.122 AT&T's Complaint seeks prospective relief as well as damages.123 Therefore, section 415(b) does not bar AT&T's Complaint. Moreover, we need not decide in this Order whether or to what extent section 415(b) limits AT&T's ability to recover damages, because AT&T ``bifurcated'' its damages request from its liability and prospective relief requests pursuant to section 1.722(d) of our rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.722(d).124 We will address those questions if and when AT&T files a supplemental complaint for damages.125 46. According to BellSouth, we should not follow the Commission orders holding that section 415(b) applies only to claims for damages, because court decisions and other Commission orders have stated that the running of the statute of limitations in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2655A1.html
  • 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 See Formal Complaint, File No. EB-01-MD-017 (filed Aug. 28, 2001) (``Complaint''). The Complaint requested that Commission staff bifurcate the proceeding pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.722(d), and address liability issues prior to consideration of damages issues. Complaint at 24-25, 99. 3 47 U.S.C. 201(b), 202(a), 252(c)(1), (c)(3). 4 47 C.F.R. 51.309(a), 51.309(b), 51.313(b). 5 Applications of Ameritech Corp., Transferor, and SBC Communications Inc., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Lines Pursuant to Sections
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-265A1.html
  • Given that the Complaint expressly links section 276 and the relevant Commission orders, we construe Complainants' allegations that NIP violated the orders implementing 276 to be tantamount to an allegation that NIP violated section 276. 6 This Order addresses only whether NIP violated the Act, and not whether Complainants are entitled to damages, because Complainants exercised their right under rule 1.722, 47 C.F.R. 1.722, to bifurcate a damages determination from the liability determination. Complaint at 1-2. 7 Complaint at 2-3, 1; Revised Joint Statement, File No. EB- 03-MD-011, at 6, 9 (filed Oct. 22, 2003) (``Revised Joint Statement''). Although most sections of the Revised Joint Statement have numbered paragraphs, some do not. In instances where the Revised Joint Statement has paragraph
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2819A1.html
  • in the Waiver Motion but in the Formal Liability Complaint. 22 In its formal complaint filed on June 3, 2003, APCC asked that the issue of liability be addressed first, and that the issue of damages be decided in a subsequent phase of the proceeding if APCC prevailed in the first phase. Formal Liability Complaint at 1-2. See 47 C.F.R. 1.722 (providing for such ``bifurcation'' of liability and damages determinations). During the liability phase of this proceeding, we deferred ruling on the instant Waiver Motion until the damages phase (if any), because the outcome of the Motion would affect only the amount of damages, not NET's liability. APCC Services, et al. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Notice of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-674A1.html
  • these informal complaints have been definitively addressed, it is not necessary to require parties to file lengthy formal complaints and answers complete with legal analyses. Under the unique circumstances here, we expedite and streamline the process for converting these 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
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-139A1.html
  • has previously recognized that certain novel arrangements for conveying assets have been deemed to convey possessory interests. Reply at 5. We agree with the Bureau that there is no material resemblance between Network's agreements with the Debit Card Providers and the arrangements listed in Network's Reply. See Bureau Liability Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10-11, P 21. 47 C.F.R. S 1.722(d). Complaint at 24. APCC has now filed a supplemental complaint for damages. Supplemental Complaint for Damages, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed April 4, 2005) ("Supplemental Complaint"). APCC v. NetworkIP, LLC, Letter from Radhika Karmarkar, FCC, to Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (rel. July 8, 200[3]); APCC v. NetworkIP, LLC, Letter from Radhika Karmarkar, FCC, to Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (rel. June 13,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-147A1.html
  • issue, that jurisdictional question has long since been resolved in favor of Commission jurisdiction. Indeed, the Bureau Order so held, and Qwest did not challenge that holding in court. 8. Second, as a factual matter, Qwest's defense that the statute of limitations has expired on any damages award is not justified at present, because Mountain exercised its right under section 1.722 of the Commission's rules to reserve damages issues for a subsequent proceeding. Moreover, even if Qwest's statute of limitations defense were valid, it would bar neither the non-damages claim for relief resolved in this Order nor Mountain's claim for damages arising from "economic harm" and other injuries allegedly incurred since September 11, 1998. Thus, it is appropriate to defer briefing
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2079A1.html
  • LLP (collectively, "Network") to stay pending appeal the effect of the Commission's Damages Order in this proceeding. For the following reasons, we conclude that Network has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating entitlement to such interim equitable relief. 2. Procedural background: Pursuant to sections 201(b) and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Rule 1.722, the Damages Order granted the supplemental complaint filed against Network by the above-named Complainants (collectively, "APCC"), and directed Network to pay APCC approximately $2.8 million in payphone compensation, plus prejudgment interest, within 90 days of the Damages Order's release on February 23, 2007. On April 12, 2007, Network petitioned for review of the Damages Order in the United States Court
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-14A1.html
  • grant a supplemental complaint for damages filed by APCC Services, Inc., Data Net Systems, LLC, Davel Communications, Inc., Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services, and Intera Communications Corp. (collectively, "Complainants" or "APCC") against NetworkIP, LLC, and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP (collectively, "Defendants" or "Network") pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"), and section 1.722 of the Commission's rules. Complainants allege that, under the Commission's payphone compensation rules, Network owes Complainants "dial-around" compensation and prejudgment interest for 11,622,941 payphone calls completed during the period October 1, 1999 through November 22, 2001. For the reasons explained below, we agree with Complainants and award damages in the principal amount of $2,789,505.84, plus prejudgment interest at an annual
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-778A1.html
  • 1934, as amended ("the Act"), and several Commission orders dealing with the assignment of toll-free numbers. DeMoss requests: (1) that the toll-free numbers be re-assigned to DeMoss; (2) that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") fine Sprint one million dollars ($1,000,000) for its alleged misrepresentations to the Commission; and (3) that we conduct a separate proceeding pursuant to section 1.722 of the rules to determine damages. For the reasons set forth below, we find that Sprint violated section 201(b) when it negligently disconnected the AMERICA toll-free numbers on July 18, 2003. With respect to the remaining alleged violations, we find that DeMoss has failed to satisfy his burden of proof. Because we have found liability in this bifurcated proceeding, DeMoss
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-860A1.html
  • Complaint 8. On February 11, 2008, Complainants filed the Complaint, alleging that the Verizon customer retention marketing practices described above violate sections 222(b), 222(a), and 201(b) of the Act. Complainants seek an order enjoining Verizon from continuing such customer retention marketing. Complainants also seek an award of damages, but deferred that determination to a separate, subsequent proceeding pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules. III. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Complainants Have Not Established a Violation of Section 222(b). 1. Verizon Does Not Receive the Proprietary Information for "Purposes of Providing Any Telecommunications Service" Within the Meaning of Section 222(b). 9. Section 222(b) provides that "[a] telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-159A1.html
  • The Complaint 10. On February 11, 2008, Complainants filed the Complaint alleging, inter alia, that the Verizon customer retention marketing practices described above violate section 222(b) of the Act. Complainants seek an order enjoining Verizon from continuing such customer retention marketing. Complainants also seek an award of damages, but defer that determination to a separate, subsequent proceeding pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules. Thus, this Order addresses only the question of Verizon's alleged liability. III. LEGAL ANALYSIS 11. Section 222(b) provides that "[a] telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use such information only for such purpose, and shall not use such information for its own marketing
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1065A1.html
  • III, XIV, XVIII (S: 64.2401(d)) and XXI of the Complaint. See Second Supplemental Joint Status Report of Complainant and Defendants, File No. EB-05-MD-013 (filed Jan. 23, 2006) ("Second Supplemental Joint Status Report") at 2-3, P: 2; 5, P: 9. See also Supplemental Joint Statement at 8, P: 25. Thus, we hereby dismiss those counts without prejudice. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(d). MAP erroneously cited to rule 1.722(h) in its Complaint. Complaint at 7-8, P: 14. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(e). See, e.g., Complaint at 1-2, P: 1; Joint Statement of Complainant and Defendants, File No. EB-05-MD-013 (filed Sept. 16, 2005) ("Joint Statement") at 4, P: 12; MAP Mobile Communications, Inc. Responsive Brief on Selected Issues, File No. EB-05-MD-013 (filed Mar. 8,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-103A1.html
  • U.S.C. S: 203(c). Section 201(b) requires that "all charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with . . . communication service shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful." 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). Complaint at 27, P: 59. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(e). This Order contains an abbreviated background section. A full recitation of the facts appears in paragraphs 3 through 13 of the October 2 Order, which we incorporate by reference. October 2 Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17974-77, P:P: 3-13. Complaint at 4, P: 4; Joint Statement, File No. EB-07-MD-001 (filed June 6, 2007) ("Joint Statement") at 1, P: 2. Joint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-477A1.html
  • with pursuing this complaint." First, we note that the "expenses of attempting to opt-out" do not encompass all the expenses of pursuing this complaint. The evidence indicates that the one improperly handled do-not-call request was promptly rectified when Smith repeated that request in June 2004. Thus, Complainants have not provided the necessary information to prove damages as required by section 1.722(h) of the Commission's rules. Moreover, we find that Complainants' legal and administrative costs incurred as a pro se litigant are analogous to attorney fees. Because the Act and the Commission's rules do not allow the Commission to award attorney fees or costs, we decline to award such costs as damages here. 27. We also deny Complainant's request that we impose
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-43A1.html
  • through 9 of the Second Recon Order, 24 FCC. Rcd at 14802-04, P:P: 2-9. Formal Complaint of Qwest Communications Corp., File No. EB-07-MD-001 (filed May 2, 2007) ("Complaint"). Complaint at 1. Initial Liability Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17976, P: 9. Initial Liability Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17974, P: 3. Complaint at 27, P: 59. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(d)(2) (A complainant seeking damages in a separate proceeding must "[s]tate clearly and unequivocally that the complainant wishes a determination of damages to be made in a proceeding that is separate from and subsequent to the proceeding in which the determinations of liability and prospective relief will be made."). Initial Liability Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17980-83, P:P: 21-25; 47 U.S.C.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-111A1.html
  • 205 (authorizing Commission to "prescribe just and reasonable charges")); id. at 37-38, P: 82 (Prayer for Relief). Sprint states that it "is not requesting damages," Complaint at 4, P: 5, but adds that it "reserves the right to seek damages at a later time," id. at 4 n.8. Sprint's conflicting statements fail to comply with the requirements of Commission rule 1.722(d) regarding requests for damages in a subsequent proceeding. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(d) (requiring that requests for damages be "clear and unequivocal"). 47 C.F.R. S: 61.26; Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Local Exchange Carriers, Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 9108 (2004) ("CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order"). 47 C.F.R.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-59A1.html
  • Brief ("Calabro Dep."); Deposition of Jeffrey D. Owens, attached as Ex. 25 to AT&T Initial Brief ("Owens Dep."); Facts to Which YMax Refused to Stipulate in the Joint Statement But Which Mr. Pavol Verified as True in His Deposition, attached as Appendix B to AT&T Initial Brief ("Appendix B"). AT&T elected to bifurcate its claims for damages pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(d). Therefore, this Order addresses AT&T's liability claims only. Complaint at 8, P: 13. At an appropriate time, AT&T may file a supplemental complaint for damages. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(e). See Reply Legal Analysis at 9; AT&T Initial Brief at 4-5 & App. A; AT&T Reply Brief at 12. We therefore dismiss without
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002070.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002070.txt
  • Commission dismiss AT&T's pending supplemental complaints without prejudice. The parties agree that the Commission's grant of this joint motion will not be deemed to prejudice AT&T's rights in the pending arbitration proceeding between the parties to these formal complaints. Further, as a condition of this joint motion to dismiss without prejudice, Qwest has agreed to waive the application of section 1.722(b)(2)(ii) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(b)(2)(ii), to any renewed supplemental complaints that may be filed hereafter. We are satisfied that granting this motion to dismiss without prejudice will serve the public interest by enabling the parties to resolve this matter expeditiously through a private dispute resolution process, without unnecessary expenditure of further administrative resources by the Commission. Accordingly,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0034.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0034.txt
  • 203(c), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 202(a), 203(c), 208, that the above-captioned complaints filed by Ascom Communications, Inc. against Sprint Communications Company and New York Telephone Company ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and ARE OTHERWISE DENIED. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ascom, pursuant to section § 1.722 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(b), may file a supplemental complaint concerning damages within sixty (60) days after public notice of this decision. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Strike filed on June 24, 1996 by Sprint Communications Company and New York Telephone Company ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary 47 U.S.C.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00371.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00371.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00371.txt
  • ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 271 of Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, 271, that the Formal Complaint filed by MCI Telecommunications Corporation IS GRANTED to the extent that it alleges that the 1-800-AMERITECH service violates section 271. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCI, pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, MAY FILE a supplemental complaint concerning damages relating to our findings in this Order within 60 days of the date of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Effective September 14, 1998, MCI Telecommunications Corp. merged with WorldCom, Inc. to form MCI WorldCom, Inc. All references herein to MCI after
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/rules/1730.html
  • telecommunications market. (3) Whether the issues in the proceeding appear suited for decision under the constraints of the Accelerated Docket. This factor may entail, inter alia, examination of the number of distinct issues raised in a proceeding, the likely complexity of the necessary discovery, and whether the complainant bifurcates any damages claims for decision in a separate proceeding. See Sec. 1.722(b). (4) Whether the complainant states a claim for violation of the Act, or Commission rule or order that falls within the Commission's jurisdiction. (5) Whether it appears that inclusion of a proceeding on the Accelerated Docket would be unfair to one party because of an overwhelming disparity in the parties' resources. (6) Such other factors as the Commission staff, within
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992449.doc
  • to receive compensation. Determination of the sufficiency of the LEC's compliance, however, is a function solely within the Commission's and state's jurisdiction. C. Damages. We conclude above that Complainants' letters constitute an adequate certification, such that these letters triggered Defendants' obligation to pay payphone compensation. The Commission bifurcated this proceeding into liability and damages phases. Thus, in accordance with section 1.722(b) of the Commission's rules, each complainant may file a supplemental complaint for damages within sixty days of the release of this order. IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES In conclusion, we find that Complainants' letters to Defendants satisfy the Commission's certification requirement. We also find that Defendants' arguments that the LECs were required to demonstrate compliance to their satisfaction are without
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992479.doc
  • provided through a separate affiliate. We find that defendants' provision of nonlocal ÃN11 ÄAccordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), Å À 0.291, that the Formal Complaints filed by MCI Telecommunications Corporation against U S WEST and Ameritech ARE GRANTED to the extent described herein and ARE ÁIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCI, pursuant to section 1.722 of the À 1.722, MAY FILE a supplemental complaint concerning ÁIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claim filed by MCI against U S WEST in the above(c)captioned complaint alleging that U S WEST's provisioning of its Express À 201(b), 271, IS SEVERED from this proceeding and, consequently, this claim is hereby assigned the new file number E(c)97(c)40A. Accordingly, all pleadings,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00034.doc
  • 203(c), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 202(a), 203(c), 208, that the above-captioned complaints filed by Ascom Communications, Inc. against Sprint Communications Company and New York Telephone Company ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and ARE OTHERWISE DENIED. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ascom, pursuant to section § 1.722 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(b), may file a supplemental complaint concerning damages within sixty (60) days after public notice of this decision. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Strike filed on June 24, 1996 by Sprint Communications Company and New York Telephone Company ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary 47 U.S.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00133.doc
  • of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and 208, that C.F. Communications Corp.'s motion to consolidate this proceeding with the informal complaints filed before the Consumer Protection Branch IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that C.F. Communications Corp. and the other independent payphone providers listed in Appendix A to this order, in accordance with Section 1.722 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, MAY FILE supplemental complaints concerning damages at a time to be determined at a status conference to be held at the Commission on June 13, 2000. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary APPENDIX A Alcazar Ltd. American Payphone, Inc. Ascom Communication, Inc B.D.A. Sales Inc. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania Best
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000419.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000419.txt
  • File a Reply, filed by Power on April 21, 1999, and the Motion to Combine Proceedings, filed by Power on April 21, 1999, ARE DISMISSED as moot. It is FURTHER ORDERED, that Power shall IMMEDIATELY upon release of this Order, stop all mobile operations, as described in this Order, under the Power license. It is FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.722(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(b)(2), that Marzec may file her supplemental complaint for damages within 60 days of the date of public notice of this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 90.655 (1991). See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Eliminate Separate Licensing of End Users of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000589.doc
  • that the above-captioned proceedings ARE TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Glenn T. Reynolds Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. U S West Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 99-2479, File Nos. E-97-40, E-97-19 (rel. Nov. 8, 1999) (November 8 Order). 47 U.S.C. § 208. November 8 Order at ¶ 40. See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.722. MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. U S West Communications, Inc., MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., et al., Supplemental Complaint of MCI Telecommunications Corporation Regarding Damages, File Nos. E-97-40, E-97-19 (filed January 7, 2000). MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. U S West Communications, Inc., MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., et al., Motion for Withdrawal, File Nos. E-97-40,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000952.doc
  • any event, we have fully considered each of the arguments raised and are unpersuaded that we should depart from the conclusions reached by the Commission in the prior orders. Accordingly, we will grant the complaints in part, and deny them in part, as detailed in the Liability Order. Sprint and MCI may file supplemental complaints for damages pursuant to section 1.722 of our rules. As stated in the Liability Order, the appropriate measure of damages is ``the difference between the amounts [the IXCs] paid to the LECs for CCL charges and the amount they would have paid had the LECs properly assessed CCL charges for the optional services at issue, plus interest.'' If a complainant files a damages claim, its claim
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002070.doc
  • Commission dismiss AT&T's pending supplemental complaints without prejudice. The parties agree that the Commission's grant of this joint motion will not be deemed to prejudice AT&T's rights in the pending arbitration proceeding between the parties to these formal complaints. Further, as a condition of this joint motion to dismiss without prejudice, Qwest has agreed to waive the application of section 1.722(b)(2)(ii) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(b)(2)(ii), to any renewed supplemental complaints that may be filed hereafter. We are satisfied that granting this motion to dismiss without prejudice will serve the public interest by enabling the parties to resolve this matter expeditiously through a private dispute resolution process, without unnecessary expenditure of further administrative resources by the Commission. Accordingly,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00179.doc
  • of Virginia State Corporation Commission against MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. on December 30, 1999, File No. E-99-01A, IS DISMISSED, and the proceeding in File No. E-99-01A is hereby TERMINATED. 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), 203, and 208, and Commission Rule 1.722, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, that the Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission will file its supplemental complaint for damages in Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation, File No. E-99-01, on or before the 60th day from the release of this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary 47 U.S.C. § 208. Commonwealth of Virginia State
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00371.doc
  • ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 271 of Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, 271, that the Formal Complaint filed by MCI Telecommunications Corporation IS GRANTED to the extent that it alleges that the 1-800-AMERITECH service violates section 271. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCI, pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, MAY FILE a supplemental complaint concerning damages relating to our findings in this Order within 60 days of the date of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Effective September 14, 1998, MCI Telecommunications Corp. merged with WorldCom, Inc. to form MCI WorldCom, Inc. All references herein to MCI after
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011044.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011044.html
  • during the hearing. Defendants may, however, demonstrate that the improperly assessed EUCL charges were not paid. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 203(c), 206, 207 and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,154 (i), 154 (j), 201 (b), 203(c), 206, 207, and 208 and sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.722(d)(1) and 69.105(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.722(d)(1) and 69.105(a), that the above-captioned complaints ARE DESIGNATED FOR A CONSOLIDATED HEARING before an Administrative Law Judge, at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the following issues: (1) To determine the relevant time period of each complaint pursuant to section 415 of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • 201(a), 202(a), 214(a), and 251(a) of the Act. Total seeks a Commission order permanently restraining and prohibiting AT&T from preventing its subscribers from completing telephone calls to Total's end-user customer. In addition, Total and Atlas seek the recovery of damages arising from AT&T's blocking of traffic, and reserve the right to file a supplemental complaint for damages pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules. In response to Total's complaint, AT&T answered, inter alia, that the Act does not require AT&T to purchase unwanted access services from Atlas and Total. In addition, AT&T filed a cross-complaint alleging that (1) Atlas and Total are violating section 201(b) of the Act by engaging in a scheme to circumvent the Commission's rules regarding dominant
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.html
  • to switch-based resellers. Rather, with respect to the latter traffic, the Defendants must provide Verizon information that enables it to identify resellers responsible for compensation. 21. 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, and sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.722, 64.1300, and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.722, 64.1300, and 64.1310, that Verizon and the Defendants must file a joint statement consistent with this Order within thirty (30) days after the Order is released. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary The original named complainants in these actions were Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc.; Bell Atlantic-Maryland, Inc.;
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01194.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01194.html
  • §§ 1, 4(i), 4(j), 207, 208, and 209 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 207, 208, and 209, and section 20.11 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 20.11, that the formal complaint filed by AirTouch Cellular against Pacific Bell is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AirTouch Cellular, pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, MAY FILE a supplemental complaint concerning damages relating to our findings in this Order within 60 days of the date of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, SBC Communications acquired Pacific Bell. 47 U.S.C. § 208 (1991 & West Supp. 1999). 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01234.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01234.html
  • Br. at 3-4. AT&T Complaint Exs. 1-42 ¶ 5; Answer at i. Appel Cert. Ex. A. Appel Cert. Ex. A, at Attachment E; Answer at ii. Appel Cert. Ex. A, at Attachment E. The record does not reveal whether CCI paid the shortfall charges. See, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 12, 13. Complaint ¶ 22(c). Complaint ¶ 22(b) (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.722). Appel Cert. ¶¶ 4-5; Complaint Exs. 1-42 ¶¶ 4-5. Complaint Exs. 1-42 ¶¶ 3-11. Answer at ii, ¶¶ 27, 33; Inga Cert. ¶ 25, and Ex. A. Answer ¶¶ 9-1, 23-26. W&C also submitted a counter complaint alleging that AT&T's imposition of the shortfall charges violated section 201(b). AT&T Corp. v. Winback & Conserve Program, Inc., Counter Complaint of Winback
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01279.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01279.pdf
  • on our analysis above, we deny Metrocall's claims for compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages. We also deny Metrocall's demands that we revisit our conclusions in the Liability Order. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 206-209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 206-209, and section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.722, that Metrocall, Inc.'s amended supplemental complaint for damages against Pacific Bell Telephone Company and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary _________________________ 1 TSR Wireless, LLC v. U S West Communications, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 11166 (2000) (``Liability Order''), petition for review denied sub nom. Qwest Corporation
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1136A1.html
  • for Review.8 Metrocall again represented that the extension would help facilitate ongoing settlement discussions and that Concord had consented to the requested extension.9 4. On April 9, 2002, Metrocall filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time,10 requesting a brief extension of time, up to and including April 22, 2002, to file a supplemental complaint for damages. Pursuant to section 1.722(e) of the Commission's rules,11 Metrocall's supplemental complaint for damages was due sixty days after release of the Liability Order, or April 9, 2002. Metrocall reported in its consent motion that the parties had reached a tentative agreement to settle their dispute and, thus, the extension would conserve the parties' and the Commission's resources and would help facilitate conclusion of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1470A1.html
  • for all compensable completed calls originating from Complainants' Payphones for the period beginning on the date of Defendant's assumption of liability through November 23, 2001.''4 The Joint Stipulation, therefore, resolves the liability stage of this proceeding, and indicates that issues regarding damages are to be determined subsequently.5 3. Based upon the Joint Stipulation, we grant the complaint. Pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules,6 Complainants must file a supplemental complaint for damages within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. The supplemental complaint for damages must 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-301A1.html
  • on Metrocall solely for the use of numbers, in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. Thus, we grant Metrocall's complaint to the extent that it claims that Concord imposes recurring charges for the use of DID numbers. The extent to which Concord may owe Metrocall damages for this unlawful conduct may be determined in a subsequent proceeding under section 1.722 of the Commission's rules.35 C. Concord May Charge Metrocall for DID Facilities to the Extent That They Are Used to Transport Transiting Traffic. Metrocall also claims that Concord violates section 201(b) of the Act and section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules by charging Metrocall for DID facilities.36 We agree with Metrocall, in part. The Commission's rules state that a CMRS
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3547A1.html
  • categories of completed coinless calls originating from payphones, including access code calls and calls to subscriber toll-free numbers. 47 C.F.R. 64.1300 et seq. 5 Complaint at 2, 11, 2, 22. 6 Complaint at 3, 4; 47 C.F.R. 64.1300 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 276. 7 Complaint at 3, 11, 5, 23; Attachment 2. 8 Complaint at 13, 33. See 47 C.F.R. 1.722. 9 See APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Letter from Douglas R. Hirsch, Counsel for TS Interactive, to Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, File No. EB-02-MD-012 (May 15, 2002); APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Letter from Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Albert H. Kramer,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-886A1.html
  • for Review.8 Metrocall again represented that the extension would help facilitate ongoing settlement discussions and that Concord had consented to the requested extension.9 4. On April 9, 2002, Metrocall filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time,10 requesting a brief extension of time, up to and including April 22, 2002, to file a supplemental complaint for damages. Pursuant to section 1.722(e) of the Commission's rules,11 Metrocall's supplemental complaint for damages was due sixty days after release of the Liability Order, or April 9, 2002. Metrocall reported in its consent motion that the parties had reached a tentative agreement to settle their dispute and, thus, the extension would conserve the parties' and the Commission's resources and would help facilitate conclusion of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-105A1.html
  • Dec. 8, 2000) (``Supplemental Submission'') at 2. 68 Letter dated January 19, 2001 from William H. Davenport, Special Counsel, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Russell M. Blau and Michael L. Shor, counsel for Starpower, and Lawrence W. Katz and Aaron M. Panner, counsel for Verizon, File Nos. EB-00-MD-19, -20 (rel. Jan. 19, 2001) at 1. See 47 C.F.R. 1.722. 69 See, e.g., Starpower-Verizon Virginia Answer at 1-2; Starpower-Verizon South Answer at 1-2. 70 See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic, Order on Remand and Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 9151, 9160, 16 (2001) (``Order on Remand'') (citing Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-115A1.html
  • at 22-23, 54. 25 Complaint at 7, 14; at 10, 21; Marpin Brief at 16; Letter from Eric Fishman, counsel for Marpin, to Lisa J. Saks, Attorney, Market Dispute Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (filed Jan. 18, 2002) (clarifying argument made on page 16 of Marpin Brief). 26 Complaint at 26-27, 62, 63. Marpin requested, pursuant to section 1.722(c)(2) of the formal complaint rules, that the Commission determine damages in a separate proceeding following its determination of liability and prospective relief. 47 C.F.R. 1.722(c)(2); Complaint at 27, 63 (mistakenly identifying the applicable rule as `` 1.722(b)(2)''). 27 Answer at 1, n.1. See id. at 6-7, 1-5. 28 Joint Motion to Dismiss of Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. and Cable
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-133A1.html
  • at 56-66. 51 Answer at 52-54, 195-201. 52 Letter dated May 9, 2001 from David Strickland, Attorney Advisor, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to J.G. Harrington and Laura Rocklein, counsel for Cox, and Lawrence W. Katz, Aaron M. Panner and Scott G. Angstreich, counsel for Verizon South, File No. EB-01-MD-006 (filed May 9, 2001) at 1. See 47 C.F.R. 1.722(c). 53 The NXX code is the three-digit switch entity indicator that is defined by the ``D,'' ``E'' and ``F'' digits of a 10-digit telephone number within the North American Numbering Plan. Each NXX code contains 10,000 station numbers. Complaint, Exhibit B (Interconnection Agreement), II.62. 54 Letter dated May 24, 2001, from David Strickland, Attorney Advisor, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-186A1.html
  • version does not materially differ from the version in effect at the relevant time. 31 The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English (Oxford University Press 1999) at 665. 32 Beehive Initial Brief at 23, quoting NECA Tariff F.C.C. No. 5, 2.6 at 2-61 (emphasis added). 33 Beehive Initial Brief at 23-24. 34 AT&T Complaint at 13. 35 See 47 C.F.R. 1.722 (1996). 36 Beehive Initial Brief at 22; AT&T Reply Brief at 23-24; Beehive Reply Brief at 27. 37 Beehive alleges that the Filed Rate Doctrine bars AT&T's claim of overcharges based on charges for uncompleted calls. Beehive Answer at 8, 50-52. This defense is patently meritless. To the extent that Beehive billed AT&T in violation of its Tariff and the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-219A1.html
  • Supplemental Joint Statement of WorldCom and Verizon, File No. EB-02-MD-017 (filed May 13, 2002) (``Supp. Joint Statement'') at 14 and 17. This order refers to the individual rates for these elements collectively and generally as ``switching rates.'' 4 Complaint at 26, 144. WorldCom intends to seek damages and other relief in a supplemental complaint proceeding. Complaint, 34. See 47 C.F.R. 1.722(d) and (e). 5 Investigation by the Department of Telecommunications and Energy on its own Motion into the Appropriate Pricing, based upon Total Element Long-Run Incremental Costs, for Unbundled Network Elements and Combinations of Unbundled Network Elements, and the Appropriate Avoided-Cost Discount for Verizon New England, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Massachusetts' Resale Services in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Order, D.T.E. 01-20 (rel.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-223A1.html
  • Telecommunications, Inc. v. FCC, 259 F.3d 790 (D.C. Cir. 2001). See also Bell Atlantic Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8115-17, 6-9. 14 Complainants' Initial Brief on the Reseller Issue, File No. 98-49 (filed July 10, 2000) at 1. 15 Bell Atlantic Order, 16 FCC Rcd 8113, 1. 16 Bell Atlantic Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8121, 19. See 47 C.F.R. 1.722(i)(4) (following a Commission determination regarding a damages computation method or formula, the Commission may order the parties to submit, within thirty days of the release date of the damages order (1) a statement detailing the parties' agreement as to the amount of damages; (2) a statement that the parties are continuing to negotiate in good faith and a request that
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-314A1.html
  • IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Qwest Petition for Reconsideration, the SBC Application for Review, and the TDS Request for Clarification are DISMISSED as moot. 86. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Communications Vending Corporation of Arizona, Inc., IMR Capital Corporation, Indiana Telcom Corporation, Inc., National Telecoin Corporation, Inc., NSC Communications Public Services Corporation, and Payphone Systems, in accordance with Section 1.722 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.722, MAY FILE supplemental complaints concerning damages after the Bureau's release of a Hearing Designation Order in this proceeding. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Appendix A 1) Communications Vending Corporation of Arizona, Inc. v. Citizens Communications Company f/k/a Citizens Utilities Company and Citizens Telecommunications Company d/b/a Citizens Telecom, Supplement to Formal Complaint,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-278A1.html
  • ) ) Respondent. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: November 5, 2003 Released: November 7, 2003 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we grant a supplemental complaint for damages filed by Starpower Communications, LLC (``Starpower'') against Verizon South Inc. (``Verizon South'') 1 pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and section 1.722 of the Commission's rules.2 In the liability phase of this proceeding, the Commission found that the parties' interconnection agreement requires Verizon South to pay reciprocal compensation for Starpower's delivery of traffic originated by Verizon South's customers and bound for Starpower's Internet service provider (``ISP'') customers.3 Consistent with that finding, we award damages to Starpower for reciprocal compensation that Verizon South
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-83A1.html
  • separate charge not included in contracts with subscribers for exchange service." 47 U.S.C. 153(48) (defining "telephone toll service"). Complainants allege that Defendants' refusal to allow them to use the shared transport UNE for intraLATA toll calls has forced them to transport their intraLATA toll traffic to an interexchange carrier. Complaint at ii. 22 Complaint at 24-25, 99 (citing 47 C.F.R. 1.722(b)). 23 Complaint at 15, 41; 16, 48; 17, 55; 19, 63; 20, 71; 21, 77; 22, 83; 23, 89; 24, 96. 24 Answer at 2-5. 25 Answer, Ex. C (Defendants' Legal Analysis) at 15-55. 26 Answer at 19, 21; Revised Joint Statement at 2, 4. 27 Answer at 12-13, 13. 28 Answer at 3-5. 29 Answer at 2-5, Ex. C
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-96A1.html
  • approximately 63% utilization rate in 2000, Verizon's own existing traffic, and its ability to add new dial-tone customers, were not affected by the K36/K43 capacity exhaust. Id. By ``Verizon's own traffic,'' we mean traffic between Verizon's end-user customers, and traffic from Verizon end-user customers to long-distance carriers. 64 Complaint at 8-9, 22-31. Core states that it will, pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.722, file a supplemental complaint for damages if successful in establishing liability. Complaint at 9- 10, 33. 65 Answer at 12, 35; Answer, Ex. B (Verizon's Legal Analysis) at 9; Opening Brief of Verizon Maryland, Inc., File No. EB-01-MD-007 (filed Jan. 18, 2002) (``Verizon's Opening Br.'') at 13-14; Reply Brief of Verizon Maryland Inc.,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1307A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 21, 2001, Core Communications, Inc. (``Core'') filed a formal complaint1 against Verizon Maryland Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').2 In its Complaint, Core alleged, inter alia, that Verizon violated section 251(c) of the Act.3 The Complaint requested that Commission staff bifurcate the proceeding pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules,4 and address liability issues prior to consideration of damages issues.5 2. In the Liability Order, 6 the Commission granted the Complaint in part, finding that Verizon had violated section 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act.7 In accordance with Core's request that the proceeding be bifurcated, the Liability Order did not address the issue of damages.8 3. After the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1339A1.html
  • its consent,'' and that such ``willful misconduct'' violated sections 1, 201(b), and 251(e)(1) of the Act, as well as several Commission orders concerning toll free number assignments. Staton asks for the immediate return of the All Eights Number, and states that upon a determination of liability, it will seek damages from MCI and Sprint ``in a separate proceeding under Section 1.722 of the FCC's rules.''33 A. Procedural Issues 10. We begin by addressing two procedural issues. First, MCI raises as an affirmative defense the requirement under Section 415(b) of the Act that all complaints against carriers for the recovery of damages be filed with the Commission within two years from the time the cause of action accrues. According to MCI, Staton's
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1682A1.html
  • June 10, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we grant an unopposed supplemental complaint for damages (``supplemental complaint'' or ``complaint for damages'') filed by APCC Services, Inc., et al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants'') against TS Interactive, Inc. (``TS Interactive'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'')1 and section 1.722 of the Commission's rules.2 In the liability phase of this proceeding, we granted a motion for default judgment against TS Interactive, thereby resolving a formal complaint alleging that TS Interactive breached section 276 of the Act3 by failing to pay dial- around compensation to Complainants for certain categories of completed coinless calls originating from payphones, in violation of Commission rules
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-259A1.html
  • to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').2 In its Complaint, Core alleged that Verizon had violated, inter alia, section 251(c)(2) of the Act3 and Verizon's interconnection agreement with Core by unreasonably delaying interconnection with Core and by failing to inform Core in a timely manner of the delay.4 Pursuant to Core's unopposed request under section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules,5 Commission staff bifurcated the complaint proceeding, and addressed liability issues prior to consideration of damages issues.6 Discovery in the liability phase of the proceeding was conducted over a period of more than six months, with both Core and Commission staff requesting that Verizon produce documents regarding Core's interconnection with Verizon.7 Verizon produced 23 documents.8 3. On
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3087A1.html
  • and proposes that the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') instruct AT&T not to file its supplemental complaint for damages until 60 days after a decision on the merits of the appeal, which Innovative intend to file on October 12, 2004, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted.4 Innovative further requests that the Bureau waive the 60-day filing deadline in section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.722, and extend the deadline until 60 days after a decision on the merits by the appellate court has become final and all appellate remedies have been exhausted.5 Innovative argues that such action is warranted for purposes of administrative efficiency and conservation of resources.6 3. On September 24, 2004, AT&T filed a Response to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3569A1.html
  • F (Declaration of Edward Keenan) at 6, 21. 25 Joint Statement at 12, 27 (Chronology citing Complaint, Exhibit 29). 26 Joint Statement at 12, 27 (Chronology citing Complaint, Exhibit 30). 27 Joint Statement at 12, 27 (Chronology citing Complaint, Exhibit 31). 28 Complaint at 6, 14. 29 Complaint at 7-13, 15-36. 30 Complaint at 22-25, 59-79. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.722(d), the Complaint requested that a determination of damages be made in a separate proceeding subsequent to the proceeding in which the determination of liability and prospective relief are made. Complaint at 26-27, 82. 31 Verizon New York Inc.'s Answer to Broadview Networks, Inc.'s Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-021 (filed Jan. 29, 2004) (``Answer''). 32 See, e.g., Answer at 27. 33
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-195A1.html
  • formal complaint relates back to AT&T's September 10, 2001 informal complaint for purposes of tolling the applicable two-year statute of limitations set forth in 47 U.S.C. 415(b).44 11. The formal complaint alleges that Vitelco violated section 201(b) of the Act by reaping access earnings over its 11.65% maximum allowable rate of return during the 1997-1998 Monitoring Period.45 Pursuant to section 1.722(d) of our rules,46 AT&T ``bifurcated'' this proceeding and requests a determination regarding only liability at this time.47 AT&T seeks a finding of liability for damages only with respect to Vitelco's 1997 earnings, however. AT&T concedes that section 204(a)(3) precludes any finding of liability for damages regarding Vitelco's 1998 earnings.48 12. In response, Vitelco asserts that AT&T's claims for damages are
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-278A1.html
  • not to claims for prospective relief.122 AT&T's Complaint seeks prospective relief as well as damages.123 Therefore, section 415(b) does not bar AT&T's Complaint. Moreover, we need not decide in this Order whether or to what extent section 415(b) limits AT&T's ability to recover damages, because AT&T ``bifurcated'' its damages request from its liability and prospective relief requests pursuant to section 1.722(d) of our rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.722(d).124 We will address those questions if and when AT&T files a supplemental complaint for damages.125 46. According to BellSouth, we should not follow the Commission orders holding that section 415(b) applies only to claims for damages, because court decisions and other Commission orders have stated that the running of the statute of limitations in
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2655A1.html
  • 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 See Formal Complaint, File No. EB-01-MD-017 (filed Aug. 28, 2001) (``Complaint''). The Complaint requested that Commission staff bifurcate the proceeding pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.722(d), and address liability issues prior to consideration of damages issues. Complaint at 24-25, 99. 3 47 U.S.C. 201(b), 202(a), 252(c)(1), (c)(3). 4 47 C.F.R. 51.309(a), 51.309(b), 51.313(b). 5 Applications of Ameritech Corp., Transferor, and SBC Communications Inc., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Lines Pursuant to Sections
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-265A1.html
  • Given that the Complaint expressly links section 276 and the relevant Commission orders, we construe Complainants' allegations that NIP violated the orders implementing 276 to be tantamount to an allegation that NIP violated section 276. 6 This Order addresses only whether NIP violated the Act, and not whether Complainants are entitled to damages, because Complainants exercised their right under rule 1.722, 47 C.F.R. 1.722, to bifurcate a damages determination from the liability determination. Complaint at 1-2. 7 Complaint at 2-3, 1; Revised Joint Statement, File No. EB- 03-MD-011, at 6, 9 (filed Oct. 22, 2003) (``Revised Joint Statement''). Although most sections of the Revised Joint Statement have numbered paragraphs, some do not. In instances where the Revised Joint Statement has paragraph
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2819A1.html
  • in the Waiver Motion but in the Formal Liability Complaint. 22 In its formal complaint filed on June 3, 2003, APCC asked that the issue of liability be addressed first, and that the issue of damages be decided in a subsequent phase of the proceeding if APCC prevailed in the first phase. Formal Liability Complaint at 1-2. See 47 C.F.R. 1.722 (providing for such ``bifurcation'' of liability and damages determinations). During the liability phase of this proceeding, we deferred ruling on the instant Waiver Motion until the damages phase (if any), because the outcome of the Motion would affect only the amount of damages, not NET's liability. APCC Services, et al. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Notice of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-674A1.html
  • these informal complaints have been definitively addressed, it is not necessary to require parties to file lengthy formal complaints and answers complete with legal analyses. Under the unique circumstances here, we expedite and streamline the process for converting these 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-139A1.html
  • has previously recognized that certain novel arrangements for conveying assets have been deemed to convey possessory interests. Reply at 5. We agree with the Bureau that there is no material resemblance between Network's agreements with the Debit Card Providers and the arrangements listed in Network's Reply. See Bureau Liability Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10-11, P 21. 47 C.F.R. S 1.722(d). Complaint at 24. APCC has now filed a supplemental complaint for damages. Supplemental Complaint for Damages, File No. EB-003-MD-011 (filed April 4, 2005) ("Supplemental Complaint"). APCC v. NetworkIP, LLC, Letter from Radhika Karmarkar, FCC, to Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (rel. July 8, 200[3]); APCC v. NetworkIP, LLC, Letter from Radhika Karmarkar, FCC, to Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (rel. June 13,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-147A1.html
  • issue, that jurisdictional question has long since been resolved in favor of Commission jurisdiction. Indeed, the Bureau Order so held, and Qwest did not challenge that holding in court. 8. Second, as a factual matter, Qwest's defense that the statute of limitations has expired on any damages award is not justified at present, because Mountain exercised its right under section 1.722 of the Commission's rules to reserve damages issues for a subsequent proceeding. Moreover, even if Qwest's statute of limitations defense were valid, it would bar neither the non-damages claim for relief resolved in this Order nor Mountain's claim for damages arising from "economic harm" and other injuries allegedly incurred since September 11, 1998. Thus, it is appropriate to defer briefing
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2079A1.html
  • LLP (collectively, "Network") to stay pending appeal the effect of the Commission's Damages Order in this proceeding. For the following reasons, we conclude that Network has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating entitlement to such interim equitable relief. 2. Procedural background: Pursuant to sections 201(b) and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Rule 1.722, the Damages Order granted the supplemental complaint filed against Network by the above-named Complainants (collectively, "APCC"), and directed Network to pay APCC approximately $2.8 million in payphone compensation, plus prejudgment interest, within 90 days of the Damages Order's release on February 23, 2007. On April 12, 2007, Network petitioned for review of the Damages Order in the United States Court
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-14A1.html
  • grant a supplemental complaint for damages filed by APCC Services, Inc., Data Net Systems, LLC, Davel Communications, Inc., Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services, and Intera Communications Corp. (collectively, "Complainants" or "APCC") against NetworkIP, LLC, and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP (collectively, "Defendants" or "Network") pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"), and section 1.722 of the Commission's rules. Complainants allege that, under the Commission's payphone compensation rules, Network owes Complainants "dial-around" compensation and prejudgment interest for 11,622,941 payphone calls completed during the period October 1, 1999 through November 22, 2001. For the reasons explained below, we agree with Complainants and award damages in the principal amount of $2,789,505.84, plus prejudgment interest at an annual
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-778A1.html
  • 1934, as amended ("the Act"), and several Commission orders dealing with the assignment of toll-free numbers. DeMoss requests: (1) that the toll-free numbers be re-assigned to DeMoss; (2) that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") fine Sprint one million dollars ($1,000,000) for its alleged misrepresentations to the Commission; and (3) that we conduct a separate proceeding pursuant to section 1.722 of the rules to determine damages. For the reasons set forth below, we find that Sprint violated section 201(b) when it negligently disconnected the AMERICA toll-free numbers on July 18, 2003. With respect to the remaining alleged violations, we find that DeMoss has failed to satisfy his burden of proof. Because we have found liability in this bifurcated proceeding, DeMoss
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-860A1.html
  • Complaint 8. On February 11, 2008, Complainants filed the Complaint, alleging that the Verizon customer retention marketing practices described above violate sections 222(b), 222(a), and 201(b) of the Act. Complainants seek an order enjoining Verizon from continuing such customer retention marketing. Complainants also seek an award of damages, but deferred that determination to a separate, subsequent proceeding pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules. III. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Complainants Have Not Established a Violation of Section 222(b). 1. Verizon Does Not Receive the Proprietary Information for "Purposes of Providing Any Telecommunications Service" Within the Meaning of Section 222(b). 9. Section 222(b) provides that "[a] telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-103A1.html
  • U.S.C. S: 203(c). Section 201(b) requires that "all charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with . . . communication service shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful." 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). Complaint at 27, P: 59. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(e). This Order contains an abbreviated background section. A full recitation of the facts appears in paragraphs 3 through 13 of the October 2 Order, which we incorporate by reference. October 2 Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17974-77, P:P: 3-13. Complaint at 4, P: 4; Joint Statement, File No. EB-07-MD-001 (filed June 6, 2007) ("Joint Statement") at 1, P: 2. Joint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-477A1.html
  • with pursuing this complaint." First, we note that the "expenses of attempting to opt-out" do not encompass all the expenses of pursuing this complaint. The evidence indicates that the one improperly handled do-not-call request was promptly rectified when Smith repeated that request in June 2004. Thus, Complainants have not provided the necessary information to prove damages as required by section 1.722(h) of the Commission's rules. Moreover, we find that Complainants' legal and administrative costs incurred as a pro se litigant are analogous to attorney fees. Because the Act and the Commission's rules do not allow the Commission to award attorney fees or costs, we decline to award such costs as damages here. 27. We also deny Complainant's request that we impose
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-43A1.html
  • through 9 of the Second Recon Order, 24 FCC. Rcd at 14802-04, P:P: 2-9. Formal Complaint of Qwest Communications Corp., File No. EB-07-MD-001 (filed May 2, 2007) ("Complaint"). Complaint at 1. Initial Liability Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17976, P: 9. Initial Liability Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17974, P: 3. Complaint at 27, P: 59. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(d)(2) (A complainant seeking damages in a separate proceeding must "[s]tate clearly and unequivocally that the complainant wishes a determination of damages to be made in a proceeding that is separate from and subsequent to the proceeding in which the determinations of liability and prospective relief will be made."). Initial Liability Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 17980-83, P:P: 21-25; 47 U.S.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-111A1.html
  • 205 (authorizing Commission to "prescribe just and reasonable charges")); id. at 37-38, P: 82 (Prayer for Relief). Sprint states that it "is not requesting damages," Complaint at 4, P: 5, but adds that it "reserves the right to seek damages at a later time," id. at 4 n.8. Sprint's conflicting statements fail to comply with the requirements of Commission rule 1.722(d) regarding requests for damages in a subsequent proceeding. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(d) (requiring that requests for damages be "clear and unequivocal"). 47 C.F.R. S: 61.26; Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Local Exchange Carriers, Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 9108 (2004) ("CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order"). 47 C.F.R.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-59A1.html
  • Brief ("Calabro Dep."); Deposition of Jeffrey D. Owens, attached as Ex. 25 to AT&T Initial Brief ("Owens Dep."); Facts to Which YMax Refused to Stipulate in the Joint Statement But Which Mr. Pavol Verified as True in His Deposition, attached as Appendix B to AT&T Initial Brief ("Appendix B"). AT&T elected to bifurcate its claims for damages pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(d). Therefore, this Order addresses AT&T's liability claims only. Complaint at 8, P: 13. At an appropriate time, AT&T may file a supplemental complaint for damages. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(e). See Reply Legal Analysis at 9; AT&T Initial Brief at 4-5 & App. A; AT&T Reply Brief at 12. We therefore dismiss without
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002070.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002070.txt
  • Commission dismiss AT&T's pending supplemental complaints without prejudice. The parties agree that the Commission's grant of this joint motion will not be deemed to prejudice AT&T's rights in the pending arbitration proceeding between the parties to these formal complaints. Further, as a condition of this joint motion to dismiss without prejudice, Qwest has agreed to waive the application of section 1.722(b)(2)(ii) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(b)(2)(ii), to any renewed supplemental complaints that may be filed hereafter. We are satisfied that granting this motion to dismiss without prejudice will serve the public interest by enabling the parties to resolve this matter expeditiously through a private dispute resolution process, without unnecessary expenditure of further administrative resources by the Commission. Accordingly,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0034.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0034.txt
  • 203(c), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 202(a), 203(c), 208, that the above-captioned complaints filed by Ascom Communications, Inc. against Sprint Communications Company and New York Telephone Company ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and ARE OTHERWISE DENIED. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ascom, pursuant to section § 1.722 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(b), may file a supplemental complaint concerning damages within sixty (60) days after public notice of this decision. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Strike filed on June 24, 1996 by Sprint Communications Company and New York Telephone Company ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary 47 U.S.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00371.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00371.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00371.txt
  • ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 271 of Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, 271, that the Formal Complaint filed by MCI Telecommunications Corporation IS GRANTED to the extent that it alleges that the 1-800-AMERITECH service violates section 271. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCI, pursuant to section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, MAY FILE a supplemental complaint concerning damages relating to our findings in this Order within 60 days of the date of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Effective September 14, 1998, MCI Telecommunications Corp. merged with WorldCom, Inc. to form MCI WorldCom, Inc. All references herein to MCI after
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/rules/1730.html
  • telecommunications market. (3) Whether the issues in the proceeding appear suited for decision under the constraints of the Accelerated Docket. This factor may entail, inter alia, examination of the number of distinct issues raised in a proceeding, the likely complexity of the necessary discovery, and whether the complainant bifurcates any damages claims for decision in a separate proceeding. See Sec. 1.722(b). (4) Whether the complainant states a claim for violation of the Act, or Commission rule or order that falls within the Commission's jurisdiction. (5) Whether it appears that inclusion of a proceeding on the Accelerated Docket would be unfair to one party because of an overwhelming disparity in the parties' resources. (6) Such other factors as the Commission staff, within
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files06/CREPOR06.PDF
  • 0.332.2 0.117.0 50.4 $3,726,896 0.0 8.2 0.040.8 51.0 $15,270 0.0 0.0 0.064.4 35.6 303,214,551 0.416.5 0.525.5 57.1 Vietnam $37,303,593 0.049.5 1.013.6 35.9 $864,182 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.1 96.8 $3,917 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 98.6 304,071,567 0.044.6 1.216.5 37.8 Asia $1,560,548,856 18.529.7 1.613.8 36.4 $121,196,919 8.214.1 0.025.6 52.1 $31,669,260 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 99.1 18,380,075,286 25.519.5 1.518.6 35.0 Australia $60,253,653 2.132.9 1.722.5 40.8 $5,621,850 0.017.2 0.024.2 58.6 $1,352,051 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 1,021,641,078 1.512.5 5.226.0 54.7 Cook Islands $446,994 0.469.7 0.0 8.4 21.6 $263 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 557,237 0.438.3 0.015.2 46.1 Fiji $9,780,762 0.248.3 0.015.4 36.1 $209,456 0.0 1.9 0.029.6 68.5 $8,238 0.0 0.0 0.096.7 3.3 46,241,400 0.138.7 0.028.0 33.2 French Polynesia $1,803,969 0.011.4 0.047.6 40.9
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2005/03-1147-051305.pdf
  • on SBC beyond that in the Forfeiture Order, as it added no burdens in addition to the $6 million forfeiture. Even though at one point Z-Tel and Core could have taken advantage of the present order to seek damages, those firms neglected to file a supplemental complaint demanding damages within the Commission's 60- day time limit, see 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(e) (2003), and such additional relief is therefore now barred. 10 The Commission's theory is mistaken. Whereas the Forfeiture Order found that CLECs generally had a right to shared transport for intraLATA toll, see Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 19,933, ¶ 20, the Liability Order found that SBC must supply the functionality to two particular CLECs notwithstanding the terms of