WPCwm 2H BX݌manNew Roman (TT)݌ S'#&a\  P6G;RY&P#3|P (TT)@^?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_((((W,E(OWOOOOOOOOOOOwSKSKSKSKSK,,,,,,,,[WWOWOWOWO_W_W_W_W(KOOWSWOWOSKWOSSOOWWOOSKSKSKSKWWSK[K[O[[K[K_W_W,WWW,,,W;WSG,GE[W[WWW((WCWEOC((N((;S(GOOOS(OOOOKOOOOOO(((((((((((((((OOtOg[[GOee*,KO.wROOn[CfxKxWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((KOOS,SWOOOOOOO,gOO(K;((OOOOOOGOOOOOOOSSSSS,,,,W[WWWWWOW____SSWOOOOOOwKKKKK,,,,OWOOOOOGOWWWWKS3|P Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)VP2i z Z;3|S Roman (TT)\  P6G;&P#Times New Roman (TT)RomanHP LaserJet 4/4M II NTXHPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,,"VPiy.C8*XC\  P6QPj7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.k7UC2XxXU4  pQXl2S=FX3RY&S\  P@Q&P.my.G8*XG4  pQnW!0(X h0\  P6QhPI(!XI,(\  P6Q,PJA`OiWSO=#=i,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,SWW\0\`WWWWWWW0qWW,SA,,WWWWWWOWWWWWWW\\\\\0000`d`````W`iiii\\`WWWWWWSSSSS0000W`WWWWWOW````S\ yO'#C\  P6QP#X01Í Í2R   3 9 3|X Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT))7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XxXU4  pQX2S=FXRY&S\  P@Q&PSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNM\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn72cF@BDHZ+"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd'P:% ,1J:\  P6G;JP\0_=5,2 &_*f9 xr G;&X            2UP@F@I@M"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"5@^?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_((((W,E(OWOOOOOOOOOOOwSKSKSKSKSK,,,,,,,,[WWOWOWOWO_W_W_W_W(KOOWSWOWOSKWOSSOOWWOOSKSKSKSKWWSK[K[O[[K[K_W_W,WWW,,,W;WSG,GE[W[WWW((WCWEOC((N((;S(GOOOS(OOOOKOOOOOO(((((((((((((((OOtOg[[GOee*,KO.wROOn[CfxKxWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((KOOS,SWOOOOOOO,gOO(K;((OOOOOOGOOOOOOOSSSSS,,,,W[WWWWWOW____SSWOOOOOOwKKKKK,,,,OWOOOOOGOWWWWKS"5@^&&209<!!&>>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!94)0400000000000G2-2-2-2-2-744040404094949494-004240402-40220044002-2-2-2-442-7-7077-7-94944444$42++)7474444(4)0(N$2+00020000-00000000t0>77+0c<<&&209<!!&>>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!9-002240000000>00-$000000+0000000222224744444049999224000000G-----0400000+04444-22h\d) GZiy.C8*XC\  P6QPj7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.k7UC2XxXU4  pQXl2S=FX3RY&S\  P@Q&P.my.G8*XG4  pQnW!0(X h0\  P6QhPoI(!XI,(\  P6Q,Pp{,C8*X9,C*f9 xQXq5PC2X9EXP*f9 xQXXy.K8?X3qK\  P@QP)I(!XI,(\  P6Q,P{,C8*X9,C*f9 xQXQV3PQ(' tf^Y_f]MWFEU؁WVF Ftvv2^iumiy.C8*XC\  P6QPj7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.k7UC2XxXU4  pQXl2S=FX3RY&S\  P@Q&P.my.G8*XG4  pQnW!0(X h0\  P6QhPoI(!XI,(\  P6Q,Pp{,C8*X9,C*f9 xQXq5PC2X9EXP*f9 xQXXsy.K8?X3qK\  P@QP I-!&X3,-\  P@Q,P2272222222``nJ 0 Times New Roman S4 3'3'Standard3'3'Current Windows FormSC\ ݌ ] X4 #Xj\  P6G; DXP#W  Federal Communications Commission `*(#[ DA 971441 ă ______________________________________________________________________________   #&a\  P6G;RY&P#  S4vf #C\  P6QP#Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  yOP'9Washington, D.C. 20554 #&S\  P@QRY&P#у  X4X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: 4)22File No. E9604  X' 42%'0*,.8135@8:  {O'ԍSee supra note 34 and accompanying text. ` United does not, however, make a connection between its argument about what  xRservice functions Bowles requires and its assertion that Type 2 interconnection rates are not designed to apply to the service characteristics of interconnection by paging carriers.  X 4` ` 2. Discussion  Xy4  i ` ` 15. We note that United and Bowles agree, as do we, that a LEC is obligated  xVto provide a CMRS provider with the interconnection of its choice upon its request and that two  XK4 xRexceptions to this obligation exist.?K {O' "+ ԍUnited Br. at 45; Bowles Br. at 9; CMRS Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 149798; Third Radio Common Carrier  {Od'Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 2376. The Commission has stated that they "see no distinction  xbetween a LEC's obligation to offer interconnection to Part 22 licensees and all other CMRS  x_providers . . . The Commission finds it is in the public interest to require LECs to provide the  X4 x&Type of interconnection reasonably requested by all CMRS providers."@Z  {O ' "< ԍCMRS Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 14971498; See also, Third Radio Common Carrier Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 2376  x ("[W]e emphasize that, like a cellular system, a paging carrier is entitled to choose the most efficient form of interconnection for its network, and the BOCs may not dictate an RCC's type of interconnection."). The Commission further stated: " @0*%%33n"Ԍ X[T]he LEC shall not have authority to deny to a CMRS provider any form of  9interconnection arrangement that the LEC makes available to any other carrier or  other customer unless the LEC meets its burden of demonstrating that the  mprovision of such interconnection arrangement . . . either is not technically feasible  X4or not economically reasonable.UA {O'ԍCMRS Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 1498.U   xThus, a LEC denying a reasonable request for interconnection and failing to meet its burden of  X_4establishing an exception is in violation of section 201(a) of the Act.dB_Z {Oj 'ԍId.; 47 U.S.C.  201(a), 332(c)(1)(B).d  X14 iw ` ` 16. We reject United's claim that it is economically unreasonable for it to  xprovide Type 2 interconnection to Bowles because Type 2 rates are not "designed to apply to the  X 4 x<service characteristics of interconnection by paging carriers."CC  yO'ԍUnited Br. at 56.C United has the burden of proof  xto show that it is not economically reasonable to provide Bowles with the type of interconnection  xrequested. United's assertions about the service characteristics of a CMRS paging provider and  xUnited's Type 2 interconnection tariffs do not meet United's burden. Specifically, United fails  xto (1) define the "service characteristics" of a CMRS paging provider that allegedly determine  xlappropriate pricing, (2) discuss how these differ from the service characteristics of a CMRS  xcellular provider, and (3) use these differences to explain how Type 2 interconnection rates, as  Xb4 x<"designed," are inappropriate.Db| yO' " ԍA LEC's burden of proving that the provision of Type 2 interconnection is not economically reasonable will  x always be dependant on the facts presented. The facts presented in this matter are that a LEC is providing Type 2  x^ interconnection to a CMRS cellular provider while refusing to provide Type 2 interconnection to a CMRS paging  x provider. The consideration of these facts in reaching our determination of economic reasonability does not create  x a limitation on the facts that would be relevant to consider in the determination of economic reasonability under a different set of facts. Thus, United has not established a nexus between the asserted  x"service characteristics" and how Type 2 interconnection rates are "designed". Despite repeated  x_opportunities, United simply has not adequately explained the economics of providing Type 2  x8interconnection and why providing it to Bowles is economically unreasonable. We note that  xUnited has described functions provided by Type 2 interconnection that it claims are not useful  X4 xto Bowles._E  {O!'ԍSee supra note 34 and accompanying text._ United does not explain, however, and we do not see, how it would be  x}economically unreasonable to provide Type 2 interconnection to Bowles so long as Bowles pays  xType 2 rates, even if he cannot use all of the functions. Thus we find that United has not met" E0*%%33"  x,its burden of proof to show that it is economically unreasonable to provide Type 2 interconnection to Bowles.  X4  i ` ` 17. Furthermore, we reject United's assertion of economic unreasonability  X4 x/because it flies in the face of more than a decade of Commission precedent.;F {O' "< ԍCMRS Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 149798; Third Radio Common Carrier Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 237576; Second  {O'Radio Common Carrier Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 291213; First Radio Common Carrier Order, 59 RR 2d at 1284.; As discussed in  X4 xpart III.A.2., supra, the Commission has consistently ruled that it is presumptively reasonable for  xall CMRS providers, and specifically CMRS paging providers, to request Type 2  Xa4 x0interconnection.5Ga$ {O6 ' "< ԍCMRS Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 149798; Third Radio Common Carrier Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 237576; Second  {O 'Radio Common Carrier Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 291213; First Radio Common Carrier Order, 59 RR 2d at 1284.5 When the Commission placed the burden of establishing economic  xunreasonability on a LEC that denies a CMRS provider its requested interconnection, it was well  xaware of the different service characteristics of the various CMRS providers and the different  X 4 xservice functions provided by Type 1 and Type 2 interconnection.5H  {OM' "< ԍCMRS Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 149798; Third Radio Common Carrier Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 237576; Second  {O'Radio Common Carrier Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 291213; First Radio Common Carrier Order, 59 RR 2d at 1284.5 Thus, United's argument,  x'which essentially relies on these differences, provides no basis for a finding of economic unreasonability.  X 4 vC.` ` SECTION 202(a) ISSUE  X4` ` 1. Contentions of the Parties  Xd4 i ` ` 18. Bowles alleges that United's refusal to provide him with Type 2  xpvinterconnection while simultaneously providing Type 2 interconnection to other CMRS providers  X64 x"is discriminatory and, therefore, violates section 202(a) of the Act.kI6 yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  202(a); Complaint at 34; Bowles Br. at 12.k Bowles argues that when  xa LEC is providing like services to different customers on dissimilar terms, the LEC bears the  X4 xburden of establishing that such disparate treatment is reasonable.TJl  yO%'ԍComplaint at 34; Bowles Br. at 12.T Bowles asserts that: (1) the  xcType 2 interconnection service that United provides to CMRS cellular carriers is identical to the  xVType 2 interconnection service that Bowles is requesting from United, therefore, the services in  xquestion are "like"; (2) United is providing Type 2 interconnection to CMRS cellular providers  xand refusing to provide such interconnection to Bowles, a similarly situated CMRS provider; and  x(3) United has not met its burden of providing a reasonable justification for its disparate" J0*%%33"  X4 xRtreatment of Bowles and cellular carriers.AK {Oy'ԍId. at 13.A Bowles asserts that these allegations show that  xEUnited is violating section 202(a). Bowles further argues that United's actions in refusing to  x/provide the requested Type 2 service has damaged his ability to compete in the marketplace by  X4effectively limiting the service quality and capabilities that Bowles can offer to the public._LZ {O'ԍSee discussion infra Part III.A.1._  X4  i` ` 19. United's answer contains general denials of Bowles' allegations of  Xv4 xcdiscriminatory practices.?Mv yO 'ԍAnswer at 23.? United does not, however, separately address Bowles' allegations of  xdiscriminatory practices in its briefs. Instead, United appears to rely on its argument that it is  xeconomically unreasonable for it to provide Type 2 interconnection to Bowles because of the  xdifferences between the "service characteristics" of paging services and those of other CMRS  xproviders. Stated another way, United argues that its disparate treatment of Bowles and other  xCMRS providers is reasonable because of differences in the services provided by the different  X 4types of CMRS providers.CN | yO'ԍUnited Br. at 56.C  X 4` ` 2. Discussion   X4 in` ` 20.  Applicable judicial decisions establish a threeprong test for determining  Xy4 x whether a section 202(a) violation has occurred.Oy  {O6' " ԍCompetition in the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace, 6 FCC Rcd 5880, 5903 (1991) ("Competition  {O'Order"); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 917 F.2d 30, 39 (D.C. Cir. 1990). First, the Commission must determine whether  xthe services at issue are like one another. Second, the Commission must determine whether there  xis disparate pricing or treatment between the like services. Third, if disparate pricing or treatment  xis found to exist, the Commission must decide whether the disparity is justified and, therefore,  X4 x/not unreasonable.wPh  {O6'ԍCompetition Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 5903; MCI, 917 F.2d at 39.w In a section 208 complaint proceeding, the complainant has the evidentiary  xEburden of establishing that the services are like and that discrimination exists between them.  x"Once like services and discrimination are established, the burden shifts to the defendant carrier  X4to show that the discrimination is not unreasonable.Q  {O"'ԍCompetition Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 5903; MCI, 917 F.2d at 39; see also CMRS Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 1498. " Q0*%%33K"Ԍ X4 iG` ` 21. Because the service in question, Type 2 interconnection, is a single type  X4 x8of service, it is by definition a "like" service.R" yOb' " ԍThe D.C. Circuit has made clear that, in a section 202(a) analysis, a determination of "likeness" turns on  x the functional equivalency test. In particular, the Commission must exclude consideration of "cost differentials and  x competitive necessity" when evaluating likeness, as such factors may be considered "only when determining whether  {O'the discrimination is unreasonable or unjust." MCI, 917 F.2d at 39. According to Commission decisions, a LEC's  X4 xinterconnection obligations are the same for all CMRS providers.S| {O5' " ԍCMRS Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 1498 ("[I]n determining the type of interconnection that is reasonable for a  x commercial mobile radio service system, the LEC shall not have authority to deny to a CMRS provider any form  x of interconnection arrangement that the LEC makes available to any other carrier or other customer unless the LEC  x meets its burden of demonstrating that the provision of such interconnection arrangement . . . either is not technically  {OW ' x feasible or not economically reasonable."); Third Radio Common Carrier Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 2376 ("[W]e  xH emphasize that, like a cellular system, a paging carrier is entitled to choose the most efficient form of interconnection for its network, and the BOCs may not dictate an RCC's type of interconnection."). CMRS paging providers and  x CMRS cellular providers are, therefore, similarly situated for purposes of the type of  X4 xinterconnection to which they are entitled.TD  {OK' " ԍMoreover, in the CMRS Order, the Commission specifically found that if a LEC is providing interconnection  x to a CMRS licensee and denies interconnection of the same type and at the same rate to a private mobile radio  x service ("PMRS") provider, "the carrier will bear the burden of establishing why this would not constitute . .  {O' xg .unreasonable discrimination in violation of section 202(a)." CMRS Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 150001. It would be  x inconsistent for a PMRS provider to be deemed similarly situated to either a CMRS paging provider or a CMRS  x cellular provider with regard to requesting interconnection, while a CMRS paging provider and a CMRS cellular  x provider, that are explicitly equally entitled to request either Type 1 or Type 2 interconnection, are not considered similarly situated with regard to requesting interconnection. United provides this "like" service to CMRS cellular  X4 xproviders and does not provide the service to CMRS paging providers.VU yO@'ԍComplaint at 2, ex. 2; Answer at 12.V In fact, United is  xcurrently providing Type 2 interconnection to CMRS cellular providers at United's Rolla Missouri  X_4 xexchange, the exchange where Bowles is currently receiving Type 1 interconnection.RV_ yO'ԍBowles Br. at 23; Answer at 12.R Thus, we  xfind that United discriminates in its provision of this like service to similarly situated customers. The burden therefore shifts to United to prove that the discrimination is reasonable.  X 4 ie` ` 22. As its justification for treating Bowles, a CMRS paging provider, differently  x from CMRS cellular providers, United has asserted that its stateapproved Type 1 interconnection  xtariffs reflect the appropriate charges for the "service characteristics" of paging services while its  X 4 x'Type 2 interconnection tariffs do not.CW " yO#'ԍUnited Br. at 56.C As discussed extensively above, United rests its" W0*%%33 "  x/justification entirely on unsubstantiated allegations related to a relationship between unidentified  X4 xservice characteristics and appropriate pricing.kX yOb'ԍAnswer at para, 16; United Br. at 56; United R. Br. at 3.k United's substantive discussion of Type 2  xinterconnection is limited to claiming that it provides no functional advantage to CMRS paging  X4 xlproviders.YYX yO'ԍUnited Br. at 23; United R. Br. at 23.Y United ignores the fact that the Commission has previously determined that it is  X4 xreasonable for CMRS paging providers to request Type 2 interconnection,pZ {O? ' "< ԍCMRS Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 149798; Third Radio Common Carrier Order at 2376 ("[W]e agree with RCC  x  oppositions that paging carriers' requests for Type 2A interconnection are not inherently unreasonable . . . .  x Moreover, we emphasize that, like a cellular system, a paging carrier is entitled to choose the most efficient form  x^ of interconnection for its network . . . . Finally, . . . we note that landline companies should need no more than six months to provide Type 2 to paging carriers.")p and more specifically,  xthat when, as here, a LEC makes a certain type of interconnection available to a CMRS provider,  xIthat LEC "shall not have the authority" to deny that form of interconnection arrangement to any  Xa4 x"other CMRS provider.{[a yO'#]\  PC qP#CMRS Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 1498.{ United has failed to meet its burden of justifying differential treatment  xof CMRS paging providers and CMRS cellular providers. United's refusal to provide Bowles  xwith Type 2 interconnection is, therefore, unreasonably discriminatory and violates section 202(a) of the Act.  X 4>O IV. MOTIONS ă  X 4 i` ` 23. Each party has filed motions in this proceeding. We shall rule on all outstanding motions in the order in which they were filed.  X{4 iY` ` 24. United filed a Motion to Dismiss concurrently with its Answer by  x'designating each of its substantive arguments as an "Affirmative Defense and Motion to  XM4 xDismiss."?\M*  yO('ԍAnswer at 36.? Because the Commission is deciding all issues raised in the pleadings, United's Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot.  X4 i` ` 25. Bowles filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration on April 18, 1996, and  xVa Renewed Motion for Expedited Consideration on April 2, 1997. These Motions for Expedited Consideration are granted to the extent the Commission has acted, and otherwise denied as moot. " \0*%%33$"Ԍ X4JQ V. DAMAGES ă  X4 i` ` 26. Bowles requested that United be ordered to provided him with Type 2  X4 xinterconnection.@] yO4'ԍComplaint at 4.@ As set out fully above, United's refusal to provide Bowles with Type 2  xlinterconnection violates sections 201(a) and 202(a) of the Act. Further, the Commission has  xspecifically required LECs such as United to provide the type of interconnection requested by  xcCMRS providers such as Bowles. United is currently providing Type 2 interconnection to other  xICMRS providers at United's Rolla Missouri exchange, the exchange where Bowles is currently  XH4 xreceiving Type 1 interconnection.R^HX yOQ 'ԍBowles Br. at 23; Answer at 12.R United is, therefore, ordered to provide Bowles with Type 2 interconnection within 30 days of the release date of this order.  X 4 i]` ` 27. Bowles asserts in his complaint that he suffered injury resulting from  xUnited's refusal to provide him with Type 2 interconnection "by being restricted to offering  xinferior service to the public while other carriers with Type 2 service are able to provide services  X 4 xthat [Bowles] cannot."t_  {OW'ԍComplaint at 4; see also discussion infra Part III.A.1.t Bowles did not, however, request damages, nor did he allege with  xspecificity evidence to identify with reasonable certainty the amount of damages that he suffered  X4 x"as a result of United's violations.I`z yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.722(a).I We do not, therefore, at this time consider whether Bowles  x@suffered any compensable damages as a result of United's violations of sections 201(a) and 202(a)  xof the Act. Bowles may, however, file a supplemental complaint for damages pursuant to section  XK4 x1.722(b)(1) of our rules if he so chooses.IaK  {O'ԍId.  1.722(b).I We note, in addition, that Bowles' complaint here  x}does not preclude him from filing a private antitrust suit against United based on the facts of this  X4case.lb {Oj' "/ ԍCompare, e.g., Craig O. McCaw & American Tel. & Tel. Co., Memorandum Opinion & Order, 9 FCC Rcd  xQ 5836, 5844 (1994), reconsideration denied, Memorandum Opinion & Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 11786  {O' x (1995), affirmed sub nom. SBC Comm., Inc. v. FCC, 56 F.3d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1995), with Bell Atlantic Corp. v.  {O' x  AT&T, No. CIV.A.94-1831 (HHG), WL 543043 (D.D.C. August 24, 1994) (Commission proceeding and private antitrust suit concerning same transaction).l  X4  i` ` 28. Bowles also requested that the Commission impose forfeitures against  xUnited for its unlawful failure to provide Type 2 interconnection. While we may, on our own"R b0*%%33a" motion, pursuant to section 503(b) of the ActGc yOy'ԍ47 U.S.C.  503(b).G and section 1.80 of our rules,EdX yO 'ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.80.E assess a forfeiture  xagainst any person found to have violated the Act or the Commission's rules or orders, we decline  xto do so here. Forfeitures are not available as a remedy to a complainant in a section 208 complaint proceeding.  X'N  VI. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES \  X_4 i` ` 29. For the reasons articulated above, we find that United's refusal to provide  xqBowles with Type 2 interconnection is a violation of sections 201(a) and 202(a) of the Communication Act of 1934, as amended.  X 4 i` ` 30. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202,  x208 and 332 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  1, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 208, 332 and the authority  xdelegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, that  xthe instant complaint filed by William G. Bowles Jr. P.E., d/b/a Mid Missouri Mobilfone IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein.  Xy4 ir` ` 31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that United Telephone Company of Missouri  xSHALL PROVIDE Type 2 interconnection to William G. Bowles Jr. P.E., d/b/a Mid Missouri Mobilfone within 30 days of the release date of this order.  X4 i` ` 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that complainant William G. Bowles Jr. P.E.,  xd/b/a Mid Missouri Mobilfone MAY FILE a supplemental complaint for damages pursuant to section 1.722(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.722(b)(1).  X4` `  33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that United's Motion to Dismiss IS DENIED. "d0*%%33"Ԍ X4  is ` ` !34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bowles' Motion for Expedited  xpConsideration and Renewed Motion for Expedited consideration ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and otherwise ARE DENIED. X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: