Click here for Microsoft Word Version
This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matters of )
Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., )
et al., )
ants, ) File No. E-98-48
Frontier Communications )
Services, Inc., et al., )
) File No. E-98-49
Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., )
et al., )
MCI Telecommunications Corp.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: March 28, 2001 Released: April 5, 2001
By the Commission:
In this Order, we resolve two supplemental complaints for damages
filed on April 26, 2000 and June 23, 2000 by Bell Atlantic-
Delaware, Inc., et al. (``Verizon'' or ``Complainant'')1 - one
against Frontier Communications Services, Inc., et al. (``Global
Crossing'')2 and one against MCI Telecommunications Corporation
(``MCI'')3 (collectively, ``Defendants'') - pursuant to section
208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').4 We
hold that under the rules and orders that are applicable to this
case, the Defendants' obligation to compensate Verizon for toll-
free calls extends to calls that the Defendants hand off to local
exchange carriers (``LECs''), but that the Defendants are not
required to pay per-call compensation to Verizon for traffic that
they hand off to switch-based resellers. However, in the latter
situation, and upon Verizon's written request, the Defendants
must provide information to Verizon that enables it to identify
any resellers responsible for compensation.
1. 2. Section 276 of the Act requires the
Commission to ``establish a per call compensation plan to ensure
that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for
each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using
their payphone.''5 In response, we adopted the following
payphone compensation rules:
3. § 64.1300 Payphone Compensation Obligation.
(a) Except as provided herein, every carrier to whom a
completed call from a payphone is routed shall
compensate the payphone service provider for the
call at a rate agreed upon by the parties by
* * *
(c) In the absence of an agreement as required by
paragraph (a) of this section, the carrier is
obligated to compensate the payphone service
provider at a per-call rate of $.24.6
§ 64.1310 Payphone Compensation Payment Procedures.
(a) It is the responsibility of each carrier to whom a
compensable call from a payphone is routed to track,
or arrange for the tracking of, each such call so
that it may accurately compute the compensation
required by Section 64.1300(a).7
3. Thus, when payphone users place toll-free calls that
are routed to interexchange carriers (``IXCs''), the IXCs must
compensate the payphone service providers (``PSPs'') for
completed calls. The compensation system becomes more
complicated, however, when IXCs sell space on their networks to
other IXCs, known as ``resellers.''8 This is because an IXC and
several resellers may carry a single payphone call before the
call is transferred to a LEC for completion.
4. The Common Carrier Bureau ruled in the liability phase
of these proceedings that the Complainants properly had certified
their eligibility to receive per-call compensation, and, upon
review, we upheld this determination.9 At issue in this damages
phase is which party - an IXC that first carries the call or a
switch-based reseller that ultimately transfers the call to the
LEC - is responsible for paying per-call compensation.10 Also at
issue is the scope of an IXC's obligation to provide to a PSP
tracking information regarding calls transferred to switch-based
III. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
· 5. The Defendants maintain that because Verizon's initial
complaints in the liability phase of these proceedings did not
raise explicitly the issue of whether a facilities-based
reseller is responsible for payment of per-call compensation,
supplemental complaints on this issue fail to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.11 We disagree. As an
initial matter, MCI consented to Verizon's filing of a
supplemental complaint for damages, and, along with Verizon,
requested that we address the facilities-based reseller
question.12 Consequently, MCI has waived any objection to our
consideration of the issue. In any event, we believe Verizon
adequately raised the issue in its initial complaints.
Specifically, in its complaint against Global Crossing,
Verizon asked us to rule that ``[Global Crossing] is required
to make payments in full for all calls originated on [Verizon]
payphones during the fourth quarter of 1997 and the first
quarter of 1998, and to make future payments for upcoming
quarters as required by the FCC rules.''13 Similarly,
Verizon's complaint against MCI sought compensation for
``every call it completes'' from Verizon's payphones.14 These
broad requests pertain to all calls handled by the IXCs,
including calls transferred to resellers. We decline to read
Verizon's complaints in the restrictive manner Defendants
6. The Commission initially addressed per-call
compensation and call tracking issues in the First Payphone
Order.16 In that order, the Commission adopted a ``carrier-
pays'' system for per-call compensation, concluding that ``the
primary economic beneficiary of payphone calls [i.e., IXCs]
should compensate the PSPs,'' and that ``all IXCs that carry
calls from payphones are required to pay per-call
compensation.''17 In addition, the Commission held that a
facilities-based carrier should pay compensation to the PSP ``in
lieu of a non-facilities based carrier that resells service.''18
A reseller that lacks its own facilities does not have the
ability to track calls.19 Therefore, ``in the interests of
administrative efficiency and lower costs,'' the Commission
required facilities-based carriers to pay for calls received by
their reseller customers and then, if they so chose, ``to impose
the payphone compensation amounts on [reseller] customers.''20
7.The First Payphone Order also established rules for
tracking payphone calls. Specifically, the order stated that the
``underlying, facilities-based carrier has the burden of tracking
calls to its reseller customers,'' that the facilities-based
carrier ``may recover that cost from the reseller, if it
chooses,'' and that the tracking obligation ``parallel[s] the
obligation of the facilities-based carrier to pay
8. A number of parties requested that the Commission
reconsider or clarify the rules adopted in the First Payphone
Order. In the Order on Reconsideration,22 the Commission made
the following clarification regarding the ``carrier-pays''
approach as it pertains to facilities-based carriers and non-
Some IXCs argue ... that we should, concurrent with our
conclusion that the primary economic beneficiary of a
call should pay the requisite compensation to the PSP,
require resellers to pay compensation for the calls
they receive from payphones and to assume
responsibility for the tracking of such calls. We
continue to believe that it would be significantly
burdensome for some parties, namely debit card
providers, to track and pay compensation to PSPs on a
per-call basis. We conclude, however, that we should
clarify our conclusion in the Report and Order
concerning which carriers are required to pay
compensation and provide per-call tracking. We clarify
that a carrier is required to pay compensation and
provide per-call tracking for the calls originated by
payphones if the carrier maintains its own switching
capability, regardless if the switching equipment is
owned or leased by the carrier .... If a carrier does
not maintain its own switching capability, then, as set
forth in the Report and Order and consistent with our
clarification here, the underlying carrier remains
obligated to pay compensation to the PSP in lieu of its
customer that does not maintain a switching
9.Subsequently, in the Coding Digit Waiver Order,24 the
Common Carrier Bureau further explained the obligations of IXCs
to disclose information about switch-based resellers providing
resold 800 service:
When facilities?based IXCs providing 800 service have
determined that they are not required to pay
compensation on particular 800 number calls because
their switch?based resale customers have identified
themselves as responsible for paying the compensation,
the facilities?based carriers must cooperate with PSPs
seeking to bill for resold services. Thus, a
facilities?based carrier must indicate, on request by
the billing PSP, whether it is paying per?call
compensation for a particular 800 number. If it is
not, then it must identify the switch?based reseller
responsible for paying payphone compensation for that
particular 800 number. Facilities-based IXCs and
switched-based resellers may not avoid compensating
PSPs by withholding the name of the carrier responsible
for paying per-call compensation, thereby avoiding the
requirements of the Payphone Orders and Section 276.25
10. Verizon and the Defendants espouse different
interpretations of our rules and orders regarding per-call
compensation and call tracking. According to Verizon, the IXC
that first carries a call must track calls and pay per-call
compensation in the first instance, and then the carrier may seek
reimbursement from its facilities-based resellers.26 Verizon
characterizes the Order on Reconsideration and the Coding Digit
Waiver Order as clarifying application of this general rule to
certain switch-based resellers.27 Specifically, Verizon views
the Coding Digit Waiver Order as absolving the first facilities-
based carrier of compensation responsibility only if a reseller
identifies itself to the PSP as being responsible for paying per-
call compensation and expressly undertakes to pay.28
11. Verizon also argues that not requiring the first
facilities-based carrier to pay results in a compensation system
that is unworkable for both PSPs and resellers.29 According to
Verizon, PSPs lack the information necessary to identify the
reseller responsible for completing the calls and cannot
determine if a call was in fact completed by a given reseller.30
Furthermore, Verizon argues that, even with this information,
PSPs will endure long delays before they are compensated for
calls that involve a number of switch-based resellers.31
12. The Defendants, on the other hand, argue that the
facilities-based reseller that ultimately transfers the call
directly to the LEC is the primary economic beneficiary of a call
and therefore is responsible for compensation.32 According to
the Defendants, the Order on Reconsideration confirms this view,
and the Coding Digit Waiver Order further clarifies that IXCs
have a choice regarding switch-based resellers: either to pay
per-call compensation for a particular 800 number; or, upon
request of the billing PSP, to ``identify the switch-based
reseller responsible for paying payphone compensation for that
particular 800 number.''33 The Defendants contend that, rather
than excusing IXCs from paying PSPs only when resellers identify
themselves to PSPs, the Coding Digit Waiver Order allows IXCs not
to pay when resellers advise IXCs that the resellers will
undertake compensation obligations.34
13. Our rules and orders require the first facilities-based
carrier (i.e., the IXC first handling the traffic) to compensate
PSPs for calls that it transfers directly to a terminating LEC.
With respect to calls transferred to switch-based resellers, the
first facilities-based carrier's obligation is to identify the
reseller responsible for paying per-call compensation. Whereas
the First Payphone Order establishes a system whereby a PSP may
collect from the first facilities-based carrier for all traffic
carried over its switch, regardless of whether the traffic
subsequently is handled by resellers,35 the Order on
Reconsideration, as clarified in the Coding Digit Waiver Order,
states that the first facilities-based carrier's responsibility
is more limited. Specifically, the Order on Reconsideration
places tracking and compensation obligations squarely on
facilities-based carriers, including facilities-based resellers.
And the Coding Digit Waiver Order makes clear that a first
facilities-based carrier need only identify the switch-based
reseller responsible for paying compensation.36
14. We reject Verizon's contention that first
facilities-based carriers have a duty to pay compensation for all
traffic unless a reseller identifies itself to Verizon. The
contention derives from the following sentence in the Coding
Digit Waiver Order: ``When facilities-based IXCs providing 800
service have determined that they are not required to pay
compensation on particular 800 number calls because their switch-
based resale customers have identified themselves as responsible
for paying the compensation, the facilities-based carriers must
cooperate with PSPs seeking to bill for resold services.''37 If,
as Verizon suggests, the Common Carrier Bureau intended to excuse
a first facilities-based carrier from its payment obligation only
when a reseller identifies itself to the PSP, the Coding Digit
Waiver Order would have included that limitation expressly.
Moreover, Verizon's interpretation of the relevant sentence in
the Coding Digit Waiver Order makes no sense. There would be no
need to require an IXC to assist a PSP in its attempts to bill
for resold services if the PSP already had been advised of the
reseller's identity. The logical construction of the language
from the Coding Digit Waiver Order requires a first facilities-
based carrier to pay unless the reseller has identified itself to
the first facilities-based carrier as being responsible for
15. The parties also dispute what constitutes a proper
request for tracking information under the law
applicable to this case. The Coding Digit Waiver Order
specifies that ``a facilities-based carrier must
indicate, on request by the billing PSP, whether it is
paying per-call compensation for a particular 800
number. If it is not, then it must identify the
switch-based reseller responsible for paying payphone
compensation for that particular 800 number.''38 We
likewise conclude that, in order to receive tracking
information, a PSP must inquire in writing whether a
facilities-based IXC will be paying per-call
compensation relating to a particular toll-free
number.39 If the IXC will not be the paying party
because it transferred the call to a switch-based
reseller, it is incumbent upon the IXC at that
juncture to identify the reseller. Stated
differently, once a PSP issues a written request for
payment, the facilities-based IXC must provide
16. Verizon argues that the alternative compensation
system it has proposed would better facilitate
collection of payphone compensation. However, the
three orders on this issue - the First Payphone Order,
the Order on Reconsideration, and the Coding Digit
Waiver Order - establish the procedures under which
PSPs, carriers, and switch-based resellers must
operate. We are mindful that the Commission has been
asked to clarify or revise existing regulations
governing the per-call compensation scheme on a going-
forward basis.41 But because this issue has come
before us as part of a section 208 complaint
proceeding regarding past behavior, we are constrained
to interpret our current regulations and orders.
V. COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES
17. Verizon is entitled to compensation from the
Defendants for each call the Defendants transferred to a
terminating LEC. Additionally, upon Verizon's written request,
the Defendants must provide information that will allow Verizon
to track calls that were transferred to facilities-based
resellers. Therefore, pursuant to the Commission's formal
complaint rules,42 we direct Global Crossing and MCI to pay
Verizon the appropriate per-call compensation rate, plus
interest,43 for each completed call (starting in the fourth
quarter of 1997 through the present) made from a Verizon payphone
to Global Crossing's or MCI's network, respectively, and to
provide Verizon adequate tracking information regarding calls
that were transferred to resellers.44
18. Global Crossing requests that we allow it to offset
alleged overpayments to Verizon against any damages it owes,45
because it already has paid some per-call compensation at the
rate of $0.284 per call.46 However, the formal complaint rules
specifically prohibit the adoption of a damages computation
method that incorporates an offset for a claim of a defendant
against a complainant.47 Therefore, we deny Global Crossing's
request to offset alleged overpayments to Verizon.
19. Within 30 days of the release of this Order, the
parties must file with the Enforcement Bureau a joint statement
that does one of the following: (1) details the parties'
agreement as to the amount of damages, computed in accordance
with this Order; (2) states that the parties are continuing to
negotiate in good faith and requests that the parties be given an
extension of time to continue such negotiations; or (3) details
the bases for any continuing dispute and the reasons why no
agreement can be reached.48
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES
20. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the
Commission's rules require the Defendants to compensate Verizon
for toll-free calls transferred to terminating LECs, but do not
require the Defendants to compensate Verizon for traffic
transferred 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
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.49
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Magalie Roman Salas
1 The original named complainants in these actions were Bell
Atlantic-Delaware, Inc.; Bell Atlantic-Maryland, Inc.; Bell
Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc.; Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc.;
Bell Atlantic-Virginia, Inc.; Bell Atlantic-Washington, D.C.,
Inc.; Bell Atlantic-West Virginia, Inc.; New York Telephone
Company; and New England Telephone and Telegraph Company. These
companies now are doing business as Verizon Communications. See
Complainant's Initial Brief on the Reseller Issue, File No. E-
98-48 (filed July 14, 2000) (``Verizon Brief'') at 1.
2 The original named defendant was Frontier Corporation.
Pursuant to a subsequent stipulation, Verizon amended its
complaint to substitute Frontier Communications Services, Inc.;
Frontier Communications International, Inc.; Frontier
Communications of the West, Inc.; Frontier Communications-North
Central Region, Inc.; Frontier Communications of New England,
Inc.; and Frontier Communications of the Mid Atlantic, Inc. as
defendants. These companies now are known collectively as
3 MCI now is doing business as WorldCom, Inc. This order is
binding on all named parties and their successors-in-interest.
4 47 U.S.C. § 208. Section 208 gives a party the right to file
a complaint with the Commission if the party believes that a
common carrier acted, or failed to act, in contravention of the
Act or a Commission rule or order.
5 47 U.S.C. § 276(b)(1)(A). Section 276 exempts emergency calls
and telecommunications relay service calls for hearing disabled
individuals from the per-call compensation requirement. Id.
6 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(a), (c).
7 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(a).
8 Resellers can be divided into two categories - ``switchless''
and ``switch-based.'' Switchless resellers simply rename the
underlying IXC service. Switch-based (or ``facilities-based'')
resellers install their own switch to handle traffic.
9 See In the Matter of Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v.
Frontier Communications Services, Inc., et al., Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 16050 (Com. Car. Bur. 1999), and
In the Matter of Ameritech Illinois, U S West Communications,
Inc., et al., v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 18643 (Com. Car. Bur. 1999),
aff'd, In the Matter of Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al., v.
Frontier Communications Services, Inc., et al., Order on Review,
15 FCC Rcd 7475 (2000). Global Crossing has filed a Petition
for Review of the Commission's Order on Review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
See Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. FCC, Case No.
00-1204 (D.C. Cir.).
10 As discussed infra, paragraph 7, we have determined that
switchless resellers do not have the ability to track calls and,
therefore, are not obligated to pay per-call compensation in the
first instance (although IXCs subsequently can collect from such
resellers per-call compensation that the IXCs have paid on the
11 MCI Answer to Amended Supplemental Complaint, File No. E-98-
49 (filed June 30, 2000) (``MCI Answer''), ¶ 7; Global Crossing
Supplemental Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complainant's
Amended Supplemental Complaint, File No. E-98-48 (filed May 16,
2000) (``Global Crossing Answer''), ¶ 24.
12 Joint Request for Waiver to File Supplemental Complaint, File
No. E-98-49 (filed Jan. 21, 2000) at 1.
13 Revised Complaint, File No. E-98-48 (filed Sept. 4, 1998), ¶
14 Complaint, File No. E-98-49 (filed July 15, 1998), ¶ 32-33.
15 The Defendants identify additional procedural deficiencies in
Verizon's Supplemental Complaints and argue that the complaints
should be dismissed or denied as a result. MCI Answer at 6?7,
13?15; Global Crossing Answer, Part III at 2?5. See 47 C.F.R. §
1.720 (establishing general pleading requirements); 47 C.F.R. §
1.721(a) (establishing rules for format and content of
complaints); 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(c) (establishing rules for
requests for damages). We agree that Commission staff should
have directed Verizon to amend its pleadings to correct the
deficiencies. However, because the deficiencies have not
compromised the Defendants' ability to address the legal issues
raised in Verizon's complaints, and in order to expedite
resolution of the cases, we will not require Verizon to amend
16 See In the Matter of Implementation of the Pay Telephone
Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd
20541 (1996) (``First Payphone Order'').
17 Id., 11 FCC Rcd at 20584, ¶ 83.
18 Id., 11 FCC Rcd at 20586, ¶ 86.
20 Id., 11 FCC Rcd at 20586, ¶¶ 86-87.
21 Id., 11 FCC Rcd at 20591-92, ¶ 100.
22 See In the Matter of Implementation of the Pay Telephone
Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC
Rcd 21233 (1996) (``Order on Reconsideration'').
23 Id., 11 FCC Rcd at 21277, ¶ 92.
24 See Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and
Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
AT&T Request for Limited Waiver of the Per Call Compensation
Obligation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 10893 (Com.
Car. Bur. 1998), petition for reconsideration and application
for review pending on other grounds (``Coding Digit Waiver
25 Id., 13 FCC Rcd at 10916, ¶ 38.
26 Verizon Brief at 3-4.
27 Id. at 4.
28 Id. at 3-9.
29 Id. at 9-12.
31 Id. at 9.
32 Global Crossing Brief at 5.
33 MCI Brief at 8; Global Crossing Brief at 6-7 (citing Coding
Digit Waiver Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 10916, ¶ 38).
34 MCI Brief at 5-6; Global Crossing Brief at 6-7.
35 See First Payphone Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20591-92, ¶ 100.
36 Coding Digit Waiver Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 10916, ¶ 38 (``Thus,
a facilities-based carrier must indicate, on request by the
billing PSP, whether it is paying per-call compensation for a
particular 800 number. If it is not, then it must identify the
switch-based reseller responsible for paying payphone
compensation for that particular 800 number.'').
38 Coding Digit Waiver Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 10916, ¶ 38.
Although the Coding Digit Waiver Order addressed a particular
subset of compensable calls (i.e., 800 numbers), the Bureau
relied on paragraph 92 of the Order on Reconsideration in
reaching its conclusion regarding tracking obligations. Order
on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21277, ¶ 92. That paragraph
pertains to compensable calls in general, not simply 800
numbers. Id. Therefore, we believe the holding of the Coding
Digit Waiver Order provides an interpretation of the Order on
Reconsideration that is applicable to all calls that are
eligible for per-call compensation under the Commission's rules
39 In this connection, a PSP's submission of payphone numbers
pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(e) would be considered a written
inquiry regarding an IXC's intention to pay compensation.
40 In its supplemental brief addressing the reseller issue,
Verizon alleges for the first time that Global Crossing delayed
notifying Verizon of the proper resellers, thereby engaging in
an unreasonable practice in violation of section 201(b) of the
Act, 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). Verizon Brief at 6. We decline to
address this allegation. In the Enforcement Bureau's order
requesting additional briefing, the Enforcement Bureau
instructed the parties to brief the legal issues surrounding the
reseller issue raised in the earlier pleadings. See Letter from
David A. Strickland (Attorney-Advisor, Market Disputes
Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau) to John M. Goodman and
Gilbert E. Geldon (Counsel for Verizon), Michael J. Shortley,
III and Martin T. McCue (Counsel for Global Crossing), and Danny
E. Adams and Steven A. Augustino (Counsel for Global Crossing),
File No. E-98-48 (dated June 27, 2000) at 1; Letter from David
A. Strickland (Attorney-Advisor, Market Disputes Resolution
Division, Enforcement Bureau) to John M. Goodman and Gilbert E.
Geldon (Counsel for Verizon), and J. Carl Wilson and Lisa B.
Smith (Counsel for MCI), File No. E-98-49 (dated June 22, 2000)
at 3. The supplemental briefing stage was not the proper time
for the parties to assert new claims.
41 See Public Notice, Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on the
RBOC/GTE/SNET Payphone Coalition Petition for Clarification
Regarding Carrier Responsibility for Payphone Compensation
Payment, DA 99-730 (Com. Car. Bur. rel. Apr. 15, 1999) at 1.
42 47 C.F.R. 1.722(d)(4).
43 The parties shall compute interest on the principal at 11.25
percent per year. See In the Matter of Implementation of the Pay
Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order, and
Order on Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, 14 FCC
Rcd 2545, 2631, ¶ 189 (1999) (``Third Report and Order''). Our
use of the 11.25 percent interest rate is unique to cases in
which IXCs are late in making payments to PSPs, and is not
necessarily applicable in other contexts.
44 The per-call compensation rate for the period from October 7,
1997 to April 20, 1999 is $0.238. See Third Report and Order, 14
FCC Rcd at 2635, ¶196. The per-call compensation rate for the
period from April 21, 1999 forward is $0.24. 47 C.F.R. §
64.1300(c). See American Public Communications Council v. FCC,
251 F.3d 51 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (upholding the Commission's
determination that $0.24 is the proper rate for per-call
compensation for ``dial around'' coinless calls made from
45 Global Crossing Answer, Part III at 8, n.24.
46 Global Crossing Answer, ¶ 25.
47 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(d)(4). See In the Matter of Implementation
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules
Governing Procedures to Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are
Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd
22497, 22581, ¶ 194 (1997).
48 47 C.F.R. 1.722(d)(4).
49 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(d).