WPC3 2 ZB0JHP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5EXN\  PXPX0Í ÍX0Í ÍҫXN\  PXP(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX2)13|x  Њ& Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter of hh#(-) ` `  hh#(-) Applications of WorldCom, Inc. andhh#(-)pp2 MCI Communications Corporation for(-)pp2CC Docket No. 97211 Transfer of Control of MCI Communications-) Corporation to WorldCom, Inc.hh#(-) To:The Commission   JOINT REPLY TO COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF  GTE SERVICE CORPORATION MOTION TO DISMISSă MCI COMMUNICATIONShh#(-WORLDCOM, INC. CORPORATION hh#(- ` `  hh#(- Mary L. Brown hh#(-Andrew D. Lipman Larry A. Blosser hh#(-Jean L. Kiddoo MCI COMMUNICATIONShh#(-SWIDLER & BERLIN, CHTD. CORPORATION hh#(-3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 1801 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.hh#(-Washington, D.C. 20007 Washington, D.C. 200063606hh#(-(202) 4247500 (202) 8721600 hh#(- ` `  hh#(-Catherine R. Sloan ` `  hh#(-Robert S. Koppel ` `  hh#(-WORLDCOM, INC. ` `  hh#(-1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. ` `  hh#(-Washington, D.C. 20036 ` `  hh#(-(202) 7761550 ` `  hh#(- Dated: February 5, 1998   & Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter of hh#(-) ` `  hh#(-) Applications of WorldCom, Inc. andhh#(-)pp2 MCI Communications Corporation for(-)pp2CC Docket No. 97211 Transfer of Control of MCI Communications-) Corporation to WorldCom, Inc.hh#(-) To:The Commission   JOINT REPLY TO COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF GTE SERVICE CORPORATION MOTION TO DISMISSă  WorldCom, Inc. ( WorldCom) and MCI Communications Corporation ( MCI) (collectively, the Applicants), by their undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Joint Reply to the comments in support of the Motion to Dismiss of GTE Service Corporation ( Motion) filed by GTE Service Corporation and its affiliated telecommunications companies (collectively, GTE) on January 5, 1998.Ѝ` ` Reply Comments of the Communications Workers of America in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (Petition to Deny) Filed by GTE Service Corporation Concerning the Applications of WorldCom, Inc. and MCI Communications Corporation for Proposed Transfer of Control of MCI to WorldCom, CC Dkt. No. 97211 (Jan. 27, 1998) ( CWA Comments); Comments in Support of GTE Service Corporations Motion to Dismiss, CC Dkt. No. 97211 (Jan. 27, 1998) ( Rainbow Comments). Other parties also address briefly the GTE Motion in their responses to the Petitions to Deny. The United States Internet Providers Association and Simply Internet, Inc., each devote one paragraph of their January 26 filings to argue that the alleged failure of MCI and WorldCom to provide information related to specific Internet issues would justify granting GTEs Motion to Dismiss. Response of the United States Internet Providers Association, CC Dkt. No. 97211, at 34 (Jan. 26, 1998); Response of Simply Internet, Inc. and Request for Additional Pleading Cycle, CC Dkt. No 97211, at 34 (Jan. 26, 1998) (collectively, the Commenters). None of the parties filing comments in support of the Motion adds any legal basis to support GTEs effort to impose an information standard for nondominant carrier transfer of control applications that nowhere appears in the Commissions rules or case law, but is instead of GTEs own creation.~Ѝ` ` CWA Comments at 5; Rainbow Comments at 3; see also n. 1 supra. ~ As demonstrated in the Joint Opposition,Ѝ` ` Joint Opposition to GTE Service Corporation Motion to Dismiss, at 45 (filed Jan. 27, 1998) ( Joint Opposition). neither the Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Order nor any other Commission decision has required that all transfer applicants must address specific public interest criteria in their applications and the Commission especially has not done so in the context of nondominant transfers like this one. Nor should the Commission be sidetracked by the attempts of the Commenters to bolster the nonexistent legal support for the GTE arguments by setting up a straw man of inapplicable legal standards: this argument first proposes that the Commission apply the informational standards pertaining to other Commissionregulated services and carriers, and then asserts that the Applications fail to meet those standards.XЍ` ` See, e.g., Rainbow Comments at 59. X For example, comparisons of the highly prescribed standards for Section 271 applications for RBOC inregion long distance authority to transfer of control applications for nondominant carriers wholly ignore the fact that, whereas Section 271 enumerates very specific elements and evidentiary showings that must be satisfied before RBOCs may obtain inregion interexchange authority, the statutory provisions applicable to this transfer of control application do not require particularized evidentiary showings.UЍ` ` See 47 U.S.C.  214 and 310(d). U Similarly, broadcasting and other radio license application requirements have no bearing on the instant proceeding. Those cases refer to highly structured and specifically prescribed applications for initial authority to provide broadcast radio and cellular telephone services where the Commission has specific rules enumerating the elements that must be addressed and information that must be included before an application can be processed. In sharp contrast, nondominant carrier transfer applications must provide information to support a Commission conclusion that the transfer is in the public interest a task which has clearly been accomplished in the Applicants filings..Ѝ` `  Even were the Commission to believe that such detailed application requirements as these are necessary or appropriate to nondominant carrier transfers which they are not the Commission has not previously announced such specific prerequisites. Certainly, fundamental fairness and due process requires that a new application standard, enforceable by the severe sanction of dismissal, would require full and explicit notice of all such prerequisites. Salzer v. FCC, 778 F.2d 869, 87172 (D.C. Cir. 1985). . Applicants provided abundant information and supporting documentation to support a finding by the Commission that the merger of the Applicants is in the public interest the merits of which the Commenters have addressed in their various petitions to deny or other filings on January 26, 1998. As the Applicants demonstrated in their Joint Opposition, however, the Applications and supporting materials provide a sufficient basis for the Commission to establish that the merger of MCI and WorldCom is in the public interest, and thereby satisfy the applicable standards and the threshold pleading requirement necessary for the Commission to deny the GTE Motion.@Ѝ` ` Joint Opposition at 710.@ In sum, the comments in support of the GTE Motion add no new relevant information or legal support for the Commission to consider regarding this matter. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Joint Opposition, the Commission should deny GTEs Motion. In addition, the Applicants reiterate their request that the Commission act promptly to deny the Motion in order to put an end to GTEs effort to portray the Commissions procedural scheduling order to state regulators as expressing an FCC concern about the adequacy of the Applications. In this regard, Applicants note that this effort by GTE has escalated since the filing of the Joint Opposition, to a point where, on January 29, 1998, GTE told the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio that [t]he FCC has recognized these glaring deficiencies. On January 12, 1998, the FCC issued notice seeking public comment on a motion to dismiss the joint application for failure to provide sufficient information.Ѝ` ` GTE Corporation and GTE Communications Corporations Application for Rehearing, Case Nos. 971580CTZCO, 971581TPACO, at 11 (PUC of Ohio, filed Jan. 29, 1998) (emphasis added). GTE also refers to the Commissions procedural order as a significan[t] . . . development and does not mention that the motion to dismiss was actually filed by GTE itself.  A copy of the GTE Ohio filing is appended hereto as Attachment A (exhibits omitted). Accordingly, prompt Commission action to deny the Motion is more necessary than ever. ` `  hh#(-Respectfully submitted, MCI COMMUNICATIONShh#(-WORLDCOM, INC. CORPORATION  hh#(-  Mary L. Brown hh#(-Andrew D. Lipman Larry A. Blosser hh#(-Jean L. Kiddoo MCI COMMUNICATIONShh#(-SWIDLER & BERLIN, CHTD. CORPORATION hh#(-3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 1801 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.hh#(-Washington, D.C. 20007 Washington, D.C. 200063606hh#(-(202) 4247500 (202) 8721600 hh#(- ` `  hh#(-Catherine R. Sloan ` `  hh#(-Robert S. Koppel ` `  hh#(-WORLDCOM, INC. ` `  hh#(-1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. ` `  hh#(-Washington, D.C. 20036 Date: February 5, 1998hh#(-(202) 7761550  < # ATTACHMENT A ă