WPC}x 2H BX ZbmanNew Roman (TT)݌mes New Roman (TT) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)#|J (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,,,,OWOOOOOGOWWWWKSApple LaserWriter II NTXAPLAIINT.WRSC\  P6Q"|P2z݌ yO'#C\  P6QpP##|a Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)X01Í ÍQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>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\h2 D3; N RomanTimes New Roman (TT)onal)HL4MPCAD.PRSX\  P6G;\m!XPTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT) (TT)E7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.F7UC2XxXU4  pQX|'P8.X9 P2x\QSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNM\\>>>\}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\2Y?K8@:Hi"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>lBBn7"5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BD7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fDxTxTxTxo7oD\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^[e*B`^.wRTTn[Cfx`xWlRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTTP:% ,J:\  P6G;JP\0_=5,7&_*f9 xr G;&XX|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|Xddd2KI@?Q< @B@ F"5@^.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc.====IK=\\RRRRRzzRpRpRpRpR=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\R\\\\\f\\RRzRzRzRpRpRpR\\\\\\I\=\===\G\p3pK\\\z=zKfGfGN@.S\=R\\\\\39\7\7==RR\==\\=R=7t=ddddhdo.Iih3[\\xdCpi_w[dfdmoPpP~j_d~~tqo.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc=\R\\=f===RR@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\h=\Id77=iS.=79\Rzpppp====hf\RRRRRRzRRRRR3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\\\"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBdddddd%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N&27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>l[O6Wls[77TTTH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5@^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Rzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\R\R3\\33R3\\\\GG3\RzRRGI3Ic.====IK=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzRpRpRpRpR=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fRp\\\\fR\p\p\p\p\zRzRzRpRpRpR\\\\\\I\=\===\RzRf3fKz\z\\zpGpK\G\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7t=dddd|do.Ii|3[\\xdCpi_w[dfdmoPpP~j_d~~tqo.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Rzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\R\R3\\33R3\\\\GG3\RzRRGI3Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\3\=3\|=\Id77=i`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zRRRRR3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\R\2ug @_ @c Y "5@^*7FTT#77Tp*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77pppTffoxffxx7Jo\oxfxfT\xff\\A/AFT7TTJTJ/TT//J/xTTTTAA/TJoJJAB.BZ*7777BD7TTfTfTfTfTfTooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/oTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxT\JfTxTxTxT\JxTfTfTfTfToJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TJoJ\/\DoToTxTofAfDTATAN:*WTATTTTTT.3}}T2T}277\\T77TT7\72t7[[[[p[e*B`p.wRTTn[Cfx`xWlRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7FTT#77Tp*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77pppTffoxffxx7Jo\oxfxfT\xff\\A/AFT7TTJTJ/TT//J/xTTTTAA/TJoJJAB.BZ7T\TT7T777\\:T7A7o\*ATTTT.T7.Tp7TB[227`W*723T}}}Tffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxpxxxxx\fTTTTTTToJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTJT"5@^F+F[Wim+==Fq+q+_WWWWWWWWWW++iqiNuW_[_[Wdi0A_Nmd____WSiWiW[W===_W+W[S[S8S_00[0_W[WJJA_NiWSN=#=i++++_0K+W_WWWWWWWWWWW[S[S[S[S[S00000000d__W_W_W_Wi_i_i_i_+SWW_[_W_W[S_W[[WW__WW[S[S[S[S__[SdSdWddSdSi_i_0___000_A_[N0NKd_d___++_J_KWJ++N++A[+NWWW[+WWWWSWWWWWW+++++++++++++++WWtWqddNWdo.0SW3[WWxdCpS_w[dfdmoPpP~j_d~~tqo++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++F+F[Wim+==Fq+q+_WWWWWWWWWW++iqiNuW_[_[Wdi0A_Nmd____WSiWiW[W===_W+W[S[S8S_00[0_W[WJJA_NiWSN=#=i+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++SWW[0[_WWWWWWW0qWW+SA++WWWWWWNWWWWWWW[[[[[0000_d_____W_iiii[[_WWWWWWSSSSS0000W_WWWWWNW____S[.N2N=.X7&N4  pQ&OP,%X)J,\  P6QJP0J=.XS&J*f9 xQ&X2j@gl7*N"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,,,,OWOOOOOGOWWWWKS2r\k(Wf@woy.C8*,gC\  P6QP2J=.,/&J\  P6Q&P 7PC2,W XP\  P6QXP.7UC2,PXU4  pQX.2N=.,&N4  pQ&|'P8/,3TP2x\Q.y.G8*,.G4  pQ7ZCL,MXZ\  P@QXPP,%,J,\  P6QJP0J=.,SV^&J*f9 xQ&Xhy.K8?XMqK\  P@QPi0J=.XS&J*f9 xQ&X5PC2XSEXP*f9 xQXX"5@^*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*7777CE7SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SJoJ].]EoSoSxSofAfESASAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}277]]S77SS7]72t7[[[[qee*C`q.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ7S]SS7S777]]:S7A7o]*ASSSS.S7.Sq7SC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS2Ix^r(y.C8*,gC\  P6QP 2J=.,/&J\  P6Q&P 7PC2,W XP\  P6QXP.7UC2,PXU4  pQX.2N=.,&N4  pQ&|'P8/,3TP2x\Q.y.G8*,.G4  pQ7ZCL,MXZ\  P@QXPP,%,J,\  P6QJP0J=.,SV^&J*f9 xQ&X{,C8*,SC*f9 xQX2S=F,M &S\  P@Q&P"5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT/{,C8*XS,C*f9 xQXPKH 6 . >R Uk U  K W& QV   2{x X4 3'3'Standard3'3'Current Windows FormRSC\ b    X  X4X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: ,N(N(JJ"Ԍ  S'A III. DISCUSSION \  S'A.Standing  S8'1.` ` Contentions of the Parties  S' e 4.` ` As a threshold matter, Global Link challenges PLDT's standing to bring its complaint to  x&the Commission. Specifically, Global Link contends that a Section 208 complaint must show that the  S' xdefendant carrier has acted "in contravention of the provisions of the Communications Act." O yO '#X\  P6G;gP#эXInitial Brief of Global Link at 31.(#ƃ Global  xLink argues that under the Act, callback is generally presumed legal and, therefore, PLDT has no valid  SH ' xclaim.iH XO {O@ '#X\  P6G;gP#эXId.(#i Global Link further contends that the orders in the CallBack Proceeding speak only of actions  xkthat foreign governments may take regarding callback and that PLDT, as a "private party," may not bring  S ' x}a complaint to the Commission under the terms of the CallBack Proceeding.s O {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId. at 3132.(#s Lastly, Global Link  x^contends that Section 208 only permits an injured complainant to file a complaint, and that because PLDT  xhas not demonstrated any injury as a result of Global Link's actions, PLDT's complaint should be  S 'rejected. |O yO'#X\  P6G;gP#эXGlobal Link Reply Brief at 47.(#  S4' e #5.` ` PLDT responds that it does have standing and refers the Commission to Section 208 of  xthe Act, which states that any "person" may complain to the Commission about violations of the Act by  S'a common carrier. O yO'#X\  P6G;gP#эXReply at 4; Initial Brief of PLDT at 2931; Reply Brief of PLDT at 1517.(#Ʃ  S'2.` ` Discussion  SD'6.` ` Section 208 of the Act states, in part, that:  e i1X` ` Any person, any body politic or municipal organization, or State commission,  complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier subject to  this Act, in contravention of the provisions thereof, may apply to said Commission by  Spetition . . . . No complaint shall at any time be dismissed because of the absence of  ST'direct damage to the complainant.tTO yO#'#X\  P6G;gP#э X47 U.S.C.  208.(#t  ",, ,N(N(JJ"Ԍ S' e 7.` ` As used in Section 208, the term "person" includes an individual, partnership, association,  S' xjointstock company, trust or corporation,xO {O@'#X\  P6G;gP#э XId.  153(32).(#x and is broadly interpreted to include "any member of the  S' xpublic" who would file a complaint against a common carrier.KZO {O' " #X\  P6G;gP#э XAmerican Message Centers v. Sprint Communications Co., 8 FCC Rcd 5522, 5523 (1993), petition for  {Ot' " review denied sub nom. American Message Centers v. FCC, 50 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (stating that any  " member of the public has "a valid interest in ascertaining through [a] Section 208 proceeding whether [a  " common carrier] is ... engaging in unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory practices in providing common  yO' " carrier services"). This interpretation supports the plain meaning construction of "any person," under which virtually anyone would have standing to complain of the wrongful acts of common carriers.(#K PLDT is a corporation and as such, meets  xthe Section 3(32) definition of "person." In addition, nothing in the plain language of Section 208  S`' xexcludes foreign "persons" from bringing a complaint to the Commission. `O {O ' " #X\  P6G;gP#эXSee, e.g., Philippine Long Distance Tel. Co. v. World Communications, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 755 (1993)  {O '("PLDT v. WorldCom"). (#  Thus, as a "person," PLDT has standing to complain to the Commission under Section 208.  S' e W8.` ` The subject matter of a Section 208 complaint"anything done or omitted to be done by  xany common carrier"may include any alleged violation of "a provision of the Act, a Commission order,  S' xxor a Commission Rule or Regulation."2 O {Oj'#X\  P6G;gP#э XAmerican Satellite Corp. v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 64 FCC 2d 503, 507 (1977) ("American Satellite").(# PLDT's complaint asserts that Global Link, as a common carrier,  xacted or failed to act in violation of the Act. Therefore, the subject matter of PLDT's complaint lies within the bounds of Section 208.  S ' e 9.` ` Common carriers are liable for damages caused by their unlawful acts, and a complainant  xinjured by such acts may complain or seek damages before the Commission or any United States district  S ' xcourt.,  O yO ' " #X\  P6G;gP#э X47 U.S.C.  206, 207. Section 206 of the Act provides that any common carrier that commits an act  " prohibited or declared unlawful by the Act "shall be liable to the person or persons injured thereby for the  " full amount of damages sustained." Section 207 provides that any party claiming to be damaged has the option of complaining to the Commission or bringing suit in federal district court.(#, Damages are provided for in such a suit, and may be recovered to the full amount sustained by  S ' xthe complainant.P( O {O' " #X\  P6G;gP#эXAmerican Satellite, 64 FCC 2d at 507; see also Amendment of Parts 65 and 69 of the Comm'n's Rules to  {O' "" Reform the Interstate Rate of Return Represcription and Enforcement Processes, 10 FCC Rcd 6788, 6849  {O` ' " (1995). For a thorough evaluation of damages claimed in a Section 208 complaint, see generally Howard  {O*!'Strouth v. Western Union Tel. Co., 70 FCC 2d 525, 55571 (1977).(#P Contrary to Global Link's assertion, however, Section 208 specifically states that "[n]o  SX' xcomplaint shall at any time be dismissed because of the absence of direct damage to the complainant."wXO yO#'#X\  P6G;gP#эX47 U.S.C.  208 (a).(#w  S' e  10.` ` Finally, Global Link's assertion that the CallBack Proceeding does not provide a "private  xtright of action" for PLDT in this instance is misplaced. Section 208 has its own standing requirement,  xwhich, as discussed above, explicitly confers standing upon "any person" to complain of alleged",,N(N(JJk"  S' xwrongdoing by a common carrier, without regard to injury suffered or direct interest in the matter.O {Oh'#X\  P6G;gP#э XSee text accompanying note 18, supra.(#ƒ Thus, PLDT has met the standing and subject matter requirements of Section 208.  S'B.Common Carriage  S8' e  11.` ` We must next determine whether Global Link is acting as a common carrier and is  x*therefore subject to the requirements of Section 214 of the Act and our relevant orders. Although Global  xpLink does not deny that the international telecommunications service at issue is being provided on a  x3common carrier basis, it claims that it is not the common carrier offering this service. Rather, Global  xLink claims that it is the marketing agent of two other carriers that provide the service. PLDT asserts,  xhowever, that it is Global Link that provides this service using callback to customers in the Philippines,  x3and argues that such action violates Section 214 of the Act and the requirements of the Commission's  S 'CallBack Proceeding.  S '1.` ` Contentions of the Parties  S ' e  12.` ` PLDT's challenge of Global Link's provision of international service using callback in  xthe Philippines depends on whether Global Link is subject to regulation as a common carrier. PLDT  S2' xargues that Global Link is a common carrier acting in violation of both the Act and the CallBack  S ' xProceeding, ZO yO'#X\  P6G;gP#э XInitial Brief of PLDT at 3.(#Ƃ and contends that the evidence adduced in this proceeding demonstrates that Global Link  xholds itself out as the provider of telecommunications services using callback to the Philippines. PLDT  xpargues that such action in the provision of this service to Philippine customers is that of a common  S' xcarrier.sO {O '#X\  P6G;gP#эXId. at 1517.(#s To support its allegations, PLDT proffers documents to show that Global Link has the "absolute  xgright" to determine the rates, terms, and conditions of the service being offered to the Philippines, and,  x3further, that Global Link has its name on the customers' bills, receives payments directly, is ultimately  x liable for nonpayment of customers' bills, and is the entity to whom the customer looks for customer  S' xservice.p|O {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId. at 24.(#p These factors, according to PLDT, are all indicia of common carriage.sO {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId. at 2223.(#s In addition, PLDT  xargues that Global Link's actions as a carrier go beyond the scope of its Section 214 authority to provide international service.  SV' e S 13.` ` Global Link contends that it "is not acting as a common carrier in any capacity in the  S.' x7Philippines," nor is it "performing any callback services in the Philippines.".O yOn$'#X\  P6G;gP#эXInitial Brief of Global Link at 3.(#Ƃ Instead, Global Link claims  xxthat it serves as "a commissioned, independent representative of two service bureaus" that act as common"0 ,N(N(JJA"  S' x&carriers to provide the service at issue.p O {Oh'#X\  P6G;gP#э XId. at 9.(#p Moreover, Global Link asserts that, for the purposes of this  xproceeding, its Section 214 authorization is irrelevant. Instead, Global Link claims that it is merely a  S' xmarketing agent for the two service bureaus, Telegroup, Inc. (Telegroup)!ZO yO'#X\  P6G;gP#эXTelegroup is an Iowa corporation located at 505 North Third Street, Fairfield, IA 52556.(#ƹ and MTC Telemanagement  S' xCorporation (MTC),"O yO'#X\  P6G;gP#эXMTC is a California corporation located at 925 Lakeville Street, #303, Petaluma, CA 94952.(#ƻ and that these two service bureaus actually provide the service using callback to  xDthe Philippines. According to Global Link, Telegroup and MTC actually handle the switching of the calls,  S8' xdo the billing, and determine the prices, terms, and conditions of service.#8zO yOR '#X\  P6G;gP#эXInitial Brief of Global Link at 10.(#ƃ Global Link claims that it has  xno corporate affiliation with either Telegroup or MTC, which, as the underlying carriers, resell the services  S' xof AT&T, MCI, and Sprint.i$ O {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId.(#i While Global Link claims that it has no direct presence in the Philippines  S' x}and does not advertise or solicit customers there,s%O {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId. at 1014.(#s it admits that it has subcontracting agents in the  xVPhilippines who, using Global Link's name and logo, advertise and contract with customers for the  Sp' xkservice.p&p. O {O>'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId. at 33.(#p Global Link argues that despite the use of its name and logo by its subcontractors who actually  xcontract with customers for the service, it cannot be considered the common carrier for this service  S 'because it does not handle the switching or billing.x' O yO'#X\  P6G;gP#эXGlobal Link Answer at 7.(#x  S ' e  14.` ` PLDT argues that Global Link's defense that it is not providing the switching functions  xgfor service to the Philippines is irrelevant. PLDT claims that the documents it has submitted regarding  xZthe provision of service to the Philippines that bear Global Link's name demonstrate that Global Link is  xholding itself out as the provider of those services. PLDT further argues that Global Link offers service  xto the Philippines by reselling international service from U.S. carriers, but has exceeded its Section 214  S'authorization to act as a reseller in this instance.s(P O {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId. at 1719.(#s  S'` ` 2. Discussion  Sh' e 415.` ` The Act defines a common carrier as "any person engaged as a common carrier for hire."y)hO yO#'#X\  P6G;gP#э X47 U.S.C.  153(10). (#y  x The Commission's regulations expand on the Act's definition, stating that a common carrier is "any  S' xperson engaged in rendering communication service for hire to the public."*rO yO*''#X\  P6G;gP#эX47 C.F.R.  21.2 (emphasis added).(#ƅ In addition, in NARUC II,"*,N(N(JJ"  xcthe court stated that one may be a common carrier "if he holds himself out to serve indifferently all  S'potential users."+O {O@'#X\  P6G;gP#эXNational Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. FCC, 533 F.2d 601, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ("NARUC II").(#  S' e 16.` ` Common carriers may offer their services as facilitiesbased carriers, or as resellers.,ZO {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXSee, e.g., PLDT v. WorldCom, 8 FCC Rcd at 758 n.30.(#Ɵ  xDResale has been defined as "an activity wherein one entity subscribes to the communications services and  xfacilities of another entity and then reoffers communications services and facilities to the public (with or  S' xwithout adding value) for profit."-^O {O ' "I #X\  P6G;gP#эXRegulatory Policies Concerning Resale and Shared Use of Common Carrier Services and Facilities, 60  {Of ' "[ FCC 2d 261, 271 (1976) ("Resale and Shared Use Order"), aff'd on reconsideration, 62 FCC 2d 588  {O0 '(1977), aff'd sub nom. AT&T v. FCC, 572 F.2d 17 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 875 (1978).(# The Commission has held that "resale is a common carrier  S' xactivity,".O {O'#X\  P6G;gP#э XPLDT v. WorldCom, 8 FCC Rcd at 755 (citing Resale and Shared Use Order, 60 FCC 2d at 308). (# and that "any entity reselling international common carrier services for the provision of basic  xcommunications service must receive authorization pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act  S'of 1934."/O {O' " #X\  P6G;gP#э XCallBack Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 2290 n.19; accord Regulation of Internal Accounting Rates, 7 FCC Rcd  "" 559, 562 ("Because resale is a common carrier activity, a user wishing to resell international private lines  " for the provision of a basic telecommunications service must first obtain certification as an international  {O6' " common carrier under Section 214 of the Communications Act." (citation omitted)); Interlink Telecom Co.,  " 9 FCC Rcd at 710 (authorizing the resale of international public switched services under tariff and pursuant to Section 214).(#  SH ' e 17.` ` Because Global Link does not deny that the international telecommunications service at  x@issue before us is being provided on a common carrier basis, the question before us is whether Global  x7Link is the entity that is holding itself out to provide such service to all indifferently. The record adduced  xMin this proceeding supports PLDT's contention that Global Link holds itself out as the common carrier providing international service to the Philippines using callback.  SX' e 18.` ` Global Link has agreements with Philippine sales representatives to enlist customers for  S0' x&its services.00 O yO'#X\  P6G;gP#эXInitial Brief of PLDT, app. tab 19 (Famador Agreement), tab 6 (Bautista Agreement).(#Ƴ Two such services offered by Global Link are named "Global Link Gold CallBack" and  S' x"Global Access CallBack," both of which use a form of callback technology.1O {OX!' "h #X\  P6G;gP#эXId., app. tab 2 at 13 (USA Global Link Gold Training Manual), tab 4 at 42 (Global Access Training Manual).(# Global Link has presented  x itself to its Philippine agents, as well as to the end user, as the provider of long distance service using  xcallback to the Philippines. In addition, Global Link's Philippine representatives advertise themselves  xas "authorized agent[s] of USA Global Link" and use the Global Link name and logo throughout their  Sh' xadvertising and promotional material.}2h O {O''#X\  P6G;gP#эXId,, app. tab 2 at 32.(#} Although Global Link claims that it neither created nor even saw"h2,N(N(JJ "  S' xthis material prior to this proceeding,3O yOh'#X\  P6G;gP#эXInitial Brief of Global Link at 11.(#ƃ its agreements with its local Philippine sales agents reserve to  S' xGlobal Link control over how its name and logo may be used.4XO {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXSee, e.g., Initial Brief of PLDT, app. tab 19 (Famador Agreement).(#ƨ In these agreements, Global Link  xrepresents that it "offers to customers worldwide services requiring access to U.S. telecommunications  S' x3interconnections."5O yO'#X\  P6G;gP#эXInitial Brief of PLDT, app. tab 15 (Agent Confidentiality Agreement).(#ƥ Global Link's training manuals, distributed to its representatives, state that Global  xLink's operations are registered with the FCC and that it uses the "backbone networks of major carriers  S8'already tariffed by the FCC."68zO {OR '#X\  P6G;gP#эXId., app. tab 2 at 310, 311, 313.(#Ɗ  S' e 19.` ` Global Link's agreements with its underlying carriers authorize Global Link to sell their  xservice under Global Link's own name or a private label, without requiring Global Link to identify the  S' xunderlying carrier to its customers.7 O {OD'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId., app. tab 5 at 3 (MTC Licensing and Marketing Agreement).(#ƣ Nowhere in Global Link's agreement with its Philippine  Sp' xrepresentatives is either of its two alleged underlying carriers/service bureaus mentioned.8pO {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId., app. tab 6 (Bautista Agreement).(#Ƌ In addition,  SH ' xthe agreements require Global Link's representatives to abide by all Global Link policies.9H 0 O {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId., app. tab 10 (Castillo Agreement).(#ƌ Moreover,  x<Global Link sets the rates for such services, Global Link's name appears on the invoices sent to its  S 'Philippine customers, and those customers are instructed to make payment directly to Global Link.: O {OZ'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId., app. tabs 4, 6, 10, 18, 19, 24.(#Ɗ  S ' e 20.` ` Global Link claims to be merely a sales agent of another carrier's services. The  xCommission has found however, that sales agents, as opposed to reseller carriers, do not set the terms and  SX' xprices for the services it offers, nor do they bill the customers for network usage.;XT O yOL' x #X\  P6G;gP#эXFurnishing of Customer Premises Equipment by the Bell Operating Companies and Independent Telephone Companies, 3 FCC Rcd 4604 (1988).(# The record before us  S0'shows that Global Link has the right to do both.<0O yO| ' " #X\  P6G;gP#эXInitial Brief of PLDT, app. tab 6 (Bautista Agreement), tab 10 (Castillo Agreement), tab 19 (Famador Agreement), tab 17 (Telegroup Agreement).(#  S' e 21.` ` Global Link's customers are purchasing an international service that uses callback that  xhas been marketed under Global Link's name by sales agents of Global Link that use Global Link's name.  x7Global Link establishes the rates, terms, and conditions under which the service is offered. Global Link's  x}name appears on the bills, and fees are paid to Global Link at Global Link's U.S. address. From the  xstandpoint of the Philippine enduser customers, they are signing up with Global Link's Philippine agents  xfor Global Link services that Global Link acquires from major U.S. carriers. Having held itself out so"<,N(N(JJ"  xprominently to its Philippine customers and agents as the provider of international services using callback,  xand having done nothing to rectify this appearance, Global Link cannot now invoke the status of marketingagent as a shield against our application of the Act and Commission rules.  S`' e J22.` ` In summary, PLDT is correct in its contention that the provision of international service  xusing callback is common carriage and has demonstrated that Global Link acts as a carrier providing an international telecommunications service to the Philippines through resale using callback.  S'C.` ` CallBack in the Philippines  Sp'  SH '` ` 1. Contentions of the Parties  S ' e 23.` ` PLDT asserts that Global Link has been using callback to provide international service  S ' xto customers in the Philippines.t= O yO8'#X\  P6G;gP#эXComplaint at 2, 68.(#t PLDT notes that the Commission has prohibited U.S. carriers from  S ' xxproviding callback in a manner that is inconsistent with the laws of the countries in which they operate.q> XO {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId. at 34.(#q  S ' xPLDT claims that the Philippine government expressly declared callback in the Philippines to be illegal.r? O {O '#X\  P6G;gP#эXId. at 811.(#r  xTherefore, PLDT argues, Global Link's use of callback to provide service to the Philippines, a country  S0'where it is banned, violates the Commission's international callback policy.x@0|O {OL'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId.; Reply at 23.(#x  S' e  24.` ` Global Link responds that, absent a clear and explicit showing by a foreign government  S' xQthat its law has been violated, the Commission should presume callback to be legal.AO yOf'#X\  P6G;gP#эXInitial Brief of Global Link at 14.(#Ƅ Global Link argues  xEthat the Government of the Philippines has failed to make such a showing and, further, that the  Sh' xCommission should not construe foreign law.pBhO {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId. at 15.(#p Global Link also asserts that PLDT is not entitled to  S@' xdeference under the principles of comity, upon which Global Link argues that the CallBack ProceedingĄ  xis based, because PLDT, as a private foreign corporation, lacks the "authority to speak on behalf of the  S'Philippine government."sC0 O {O!'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId. at 2829.(#s  S'` ` 2. Discussion  Sz'  SR' e 25.` ` CallBack Proceeding. In the CallBack Proceeding, the Commission concluded that  x^international services using the uncompleted call signaling configuration of callback would be "in the best", C,N(N(JJ"  S' xinterests of consumersand eventually of economic growtharound the world"DO {Oh'#X\  P6G;gP#эXCallBack Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd at 9541.(#Ɣ by promoting competition  S' x}in international markets and by placing significant downward pressure on foreign collection rates.rEZO {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId. at 9549.(#r  xNotwithstanding this general endorsement of callback, however, the Commission expressly prohibited  xU.S.based carriers from offering international service using uncompleted call signaling (callback) in  S`'countries that have specifically prohibited this practice.F`O {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXCallBack Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 2290, 2292; CallBack Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd at 954041, 955759.(#  S' e 26.` ` Philippine Law. The record before us indicates that the Philippine government considered  S' xNcallback unlawful as early as 1994.G~O {O ' " #X\  P6G;gP#эXIn the CallBack Reconsideration, the Philippines were specifically mentioned twice, first as a government  "V that submitted information identifying "specific administrative regulations or rulings barring international  " callback," and second, as having pointed to "general telecommunications legislation on concession  " arrangements which have the effect of requiring administrative approval or licensing of all activities not vested in the national provider." 10 FCC Rcd at 9554, nn. 63, 64.(#Ɩ On November 22 of that year, the Philippine National  xxTelecommunications Commission (NTC) ordered a company offering international service using callback  S' xto Philippine customers to cease and desist from offering such a service pending a hearing on the merits.H0 O {Oh' "_ #X\  P6G;gP#эXComplaint, Exhibit C (Philippine Global Comm., Inc. v. Dialback U.S.A. Phils., Order, ADM Case No. 93-162 (Nov. 22, 1994)).(#  xVOn January 16, 1995, the NTC issued a "Memorandum Circular" that directed "[a]ny person, firm,  xDcompany, association or agency offering, marketing or using any or all callback, dialback or any similar  xservices not otherwise authorized by the Commission . . . to cease and desist from any of the above or  S ' x&related activity."I O yO"' "+ #X\  P6G;gP#эXComplaint, Exhibit E (Memorandum Circular, issued Jan. 16, 1995, by the NTC, Department of Transp. and Communications, Republic of Philippines).(# Since then, the Philippine government has taken action against several carriers that  S ' xpurported to offer service in the Philippines using a configuration of callback.J O {OR'#X\  P6G;gP#эXSee supra note 9, PLDT v. ITL, nn.70, 71.(#ơ Finally, in response to  xMa request from this Commission's International Bureau, the NTC provided a list of ten U.S. companies  xbelieved to be carriers against whom the NTC has issued cease and desist orders, further demonstrating  SX'the resolve of the Philippine government to prohibit callback operations in its country.'K XtO yOl ' " #X\  P6G;gP#эXLetter from Simeon L. Kintanar, Commissioner, NTC, to Diane J. Cornell, Chief, Telecommunications  " Division, International Bureau, FCC, May 28, 1996. This letter may be found in a public file titled  " "International CallBack: Foreign Law," which is kept by the International Bureau. This file contains submissions from foreign governments of information regarding their positions on callback services.(#'  S' e 27.` ` Global Link's Services. The record adduced in the instant complaint supports PLDT's  xassertion that the government of the Philippines has, by law, regulation, or ruling, prohibited callback in  xgthe Philippines. In a case filed by PLDT against a different defendant, the Commission concluded that  x8"the government of the Philippines has, by law, regulation, or ruling, prohibited callback in the" \K,N(N(JJH"  S' x*Philippines."LO {Oh'#X\  P6G;gP#эXSee supra note 9, PLDT v. ITL, para. 20.(#ƕ Accordingly, the Commission found that the defendant violated the CallBack Proceeding  x3by providing international common carrier telephone service to the Philippines using callback without  xfirst obtaining authorization under Section 214. The Commission also found that the defendant violated  S' xthe requirements of its CallBack Proceeding by providing service using callback to a country that  Sd' xVprohibits such service.jMdZO {O^'#X\  P6G;gP#эXId. (#j Based on the record in this proceeding, we conclude that Global Link is a  xprovider of international services via callback to the Philippines, despite that country's ban on such  xactivity. Because Global Link is not providing its service in a manner that is consistent with the laws of  x8the Philippines, as required by the Commission, Global Link is violating the requirements of the  S'Commission's CallBack Proceeding.  Sv' e 28.` ` Global Link's defense that the government of the Philippines failed to demonstrate that  xGlobal Link has violated Philippine law is misplaced. Although the Commission has provided certain  xprocedures that may be followed by foreign governments experiencing difficulty in enforcing their national  xlaws and regulations against U.S. providers of international service using the uncompleted call signaling  S ' xconfiguration of callback,N O {Ob' " #X\  P6G;gP#эXIn the CallBack Reconsideration, the Commission stated that if any foreign government, having decided  "V international callback using uncompleted call signaling was unlawful, was unable to enforce its domestic  " law or regulation against U.S. providers of this offering, it may so notify the United States Government.  " Its notification should include specific documentation of its legal restrictions on international callback  " utilizing uncompleted call signaling, evidence of violations by particular carriers, and a description of its  "8 enforcement measures. Any such foreign government must also provide the Commission's staff with  " documentation of its specific statutory or regulatory measure, so that U.S. carriers will be on notice that  {O' "  international callback utilizing uncompleted call signaling is illegal in its territory. CallBack  {O'Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd at 9558.(#Ɩ these procedures in no way preclude a party from filing a formal complaint  xpursuant to Section 208 of the Act against a carrier for violation of the Act, the Commission's rules, or  S ' xany Commission order.gOZ O {O' " #X\  P6G;gP#эXCallBack Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd at 955758. The Commission's decision to assist those foreign  " governments in the enforcement of their own laws and regulations prohibiting callback was a matter of international comity.(#g PLDT filed its complaint under Section 208, and any argument that the  x*complainant failed to follow the procedures established by the Commission to assist foreign governments  S6'in enforcing their call-back regulations is irrelevant to this proceeding.P6O {O'#X\  P6G;gP#эXSee discussion of standing, supra, paras. 69.(#ƚ  S' e d29.` ` Global Link's contentions that the Commission should not construe the laws of a foreign  xcountry and that PLDT is not entitled to comity are also misplaced. We are not interpreting foreign law.  xInstead, we are accepting at face value what the Philippine government tells us about callback in its" vP,N(N(JJ!"  S' xcountry. Neither is comity, which requires us to assist a foreign government in its efforts, the issue here.QBO yOh' "' #X\  P6G;gP#эXAs a matter of international comity, the Commission decided to assist foreign governments in the  " enforcement of their own laws and regulations prohibiting callback . The doctrine of comity reflects the  " broad concept of respect among sovereign nations, under which one nation recognizes the laws of another.  " Comity is distinct from the obligations imposed under international law. The Commission recognized that,  " with respect to callback, some foreign countries' laws and regulations conflict with U.S. policy.  " Accordingly, the Commission invoked comity in its determination to prohibit U.S. carriers authorized to  " provide international service using callback from providing callback in countries where it is expressly  {O'prohibited. CallBack Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd at 955558.(# It is not the Philippine government that initiated this proceeding.  S' e 30.` ` The issue here is a violation of U.S. law, albeit one that requires international carriers to  xcomply with foreign law. PLDT has provided sufficient evidence that the government of the Philippines  xhas banned callback, and Global Link has failed to adequately rebut that showing. The Commission has  xthe authority to consider allegations that a carrier has violated the Act, Commission rules, or established  S' xCommission orders. To the extent PLDT alleges that a violation of the Commission's CallBack  S'Proceeding and Section 214 of the Act has occurred, we have the authority to consider such a complaint.  St' e ~31.` ` Section 214 Authorization. On October 19, 1994, the Commission granted Global Link's  xkapplication for Section 214 authority to resell international switched service between the United States and  S$ ' xany of the 254 countries listed in its application, one of which is the Philippines.R$ O yO' " #X\  P6G;gP#эXInitial Brief of PLDT, app. tab 8 (Grant of International Section 214 Certification), tab 25 (Application for Section 214 Authority).(# The Commission  xconditioned its grant of authority by requiring any applicant intending to provide international service  xyusing the uncompleted call signaling format of callback to comply with the requirements of the  S ' xCommission's CallBack Proceeding.S * O yOv'#X\  P6G;gP#эXGrant of International Section 214 Certification at 23, File No. ITC94461 (1994).(#Ʒ Having determined that Global Link is acting as a common carrier,  xwe further conclude that its provision of international service to the Philippines through the use of callback, where such action is prohibited, violates the conditions of Global Link's Section 214 Certificate.  S' e 32.` ` PLDT has also asked us to assess a forfeiture against Global Link. While we may, on  xour own motion, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  503(b), and Section 1.80 of our rules,  x747 C.F.R.  1.80, assess a forfeiture against any person found to have willfully or repeatedly violated any  xprovision of the Act or any Commission rule, regulation, or order, we decline to do so here. Forfeitures  Sn'are not available as a remedy to a complainant in a formal complaint proceeding.Tn O yO '#X\  P6G;gP#эX47 U.S.C.  503(b)(1) (Violators "shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.").(#  S'D IV. CONCLUSION \  S' e = 33.` ` For the reasons discussed above, we find that Global Link has violated the requirements  S~' xof the Commission's CallBack Proceeding and Section 214 of the Act, and, accordingly, we grant PLDT's  xcomplaint. We therefore direct ITL to terminate its service using the uncompleted call signaling"X J T,N(N(JJ"  x&configuration of callback to the Philippines. Further, pursuant to Section 1.722 of the Commission's  xQrules, PLDT may file a supplemental complaint for damages within 60 days after the release of this order.  xIn this supplemental proceeding, the parties will have a full and fair opportunity to build a record on damages.  S'- V. ORDERING CLAUSES \  S' e !34.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 214 of the Act,  x47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, 214, and Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, that the complaint filed by PLDT IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein.  S ' e "35.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that USA Global Link SHALL TERMINATE immediately  xits international service that uses the uncompleted call signaling configuration of callback to the Philippines.  S ' e #36.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PLDT, in accordance with the Commission's rules, see  xZ47 C.F.R.  1.722, MAY FILE a supplemental complaint concerning damages within 60 days after the release date of this order. ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqMary Beth Richards  S'` `  hhCqDeputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau#&S\  P@Q  &P#