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).


                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                 )
              Complainant,      )
              v.                )    EB-00-MD-016
HOLDINGS, INC. and ALASKA        )
UTILITY,                         )


   Adopted:  March 29, 2001             Released:  April 4, 2001

By the Commission:

In this Order, we grant the limited Request for Stay filed by ACS 
of Anchorage, Inc. (f/k/a Alaska Communications Systems, Inc., 
d/b/a ATU Telecommunications d/b/a Anchorage Telephone Utility) 
(``ACS'').1  The stay is conditioned on ACS's payment of an 
amount equal to the damages that the Commission ordered ACS to 
pay to complainant General Communication, Inc. (``GCI''), 
including prejudgment interest, into an interest-bearing escrow 

ACS seeks to stay the effectiveness of only the damages aspect of 
our January 24 Order, in which we found that ACS exceeded its 
permissible rate of return for the 1997-1998 monitoring period.3  
On February 7, 2001, ACS filed a petition for review of the 
January 24 Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit.  ACS requests that the stay remain 
in effect until the Court of Appeals resolves its petition for 
review.4  GCI opposes ACS's stay request, arguing primarily that 
ACS has failed to show the requisite irreparable harm.5  
Moreover, although GCI argues generally that it (GCI) will be 
harmed if it does not receive its damages award pending 
resolution of ACS's appeal, GCI offers no specific evidence of 
any such harm.6

In an analogous case, we stayed the effectiveness of a refund 
order pending an appeal of the order, conditioned on the movant's 
payment of the refund amount into an interest-bearing escrow 
account.7  Although we generally apply a four-part test in 
determining whether to grant a stay request,8 we declined to 
follow that test strictly in VITELCO, because we concluded that 
all parties' interests were protected by the movant's payment of 
an amount sufficient to cover the refund awarded into an 
interest-bearing escrow account.9  Similarly, federal courts stay 
the payment of damages awards as a matter of right pending an 
appeal if the stay applicant posts an appropriate bond.10

Consistent with our prior precedent and with the general rule in 
federal court, we grant ACS's Request for Stay, conditioned on 
ACS's payment of an amount equal to the damages award, including 
prejudgment interest, in an interest-bearing escrow account 
pending the Court of Appeal's resolution of ACS's petition for 
review.11  This will protect the interests of GCI in ensuring 
that adequate funds are available to it, including interest, 
should ACS not prevail on appeal.12

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 
208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  
154(i), 154(j), and 208, that ACS's request for stay is GRANTED, 
conditioned on ACS filing with the Commission within fourteen 
days of the release of this order verified proof that ACS has 
placed the amount of the damages award set forth in the 
Commission's January 24, 2001 Order, including prejudgment 
interest, in an escrow account accruing interest at prevailing 
market rates.  The stay will remain effective pending resolution 
by the Court of Appeals of ACS's Petition for Review of the 
Commission's January 24 Order.  

     5.   Magalie Roman Salas
     6.   Secretary

1    ACS  of  Anchorage,   Inc.  (f/k/a  Alaska   Communications 
Systems, Inc.) Request  for Stay, File  No. EB-00-MD-016  (filed 
Feb. 28, 2001) (``Request for Stay'').

2    General  Communication,  Inc.   v.  Alaska   Communications 
Systems Holdings, Inc.,  et al., Memorandum  Opinion and  Order, 
FCC 01-32 (rel. Jan. 24, 2001) (``January 24 Order'') at  77.

3    In our January 24  Order, we required ACS:   1) to pay  GCI 
$2,765,371, plus  prejudgment interest,  within 90  days; 2)  to 
modify its monitoring report for the period in question; and  3) 
until  otherwise  ordered,   to  allocate   to  the   intrastate 
jurisdiction for  separations  purposes the  costs  of  carrying 
internet service provider (``ISP'')  traffic, and to count  each 
minute of  an intraoffice  call as  two dial  equipment  minutes 
(``DEMs'').  January 24 Order at  77-79.  ACS does not seek to 
stay the latter two  aspects of the  January 24 Order.   Request 
for Stay at 3.

4    Request for Stay at 1, 9.

5    Opposition of General  Communication, Inc.  to the  Request 
for Stay of ACS of Anchorage, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-016 (filed 
Mar. 15, 2001) (``GCI Opposition'') at 4-5.

6    GCI Opposition at  7.  GCI does  not contend, for  example, 
that its ability to provide services will in any way be affected 
if it does not receive the damages award on the date  originally 
ordered by the Commission.

7    Virgin Islands Telephone  Corporation Tariff  F.C.C. No.  1 
Switched and Special  Access Rate Adjustments,  7 FCC Rcd  4235, 
4236-37,  13 (1992) (``VITELCO'').

8    See, e.g.,  Expanded Interconnection  with Local  Telephone 
Company Facilities, 8 FCC Rcd 123, 124,  6 (1992) (stating that 
parties may obtain a stay if  they establish that:  1) they  are 
likely to succeed on the merits on appeal; 2) they would  suffer 
irreparable  injury  absent  a  stay;   3)  a  stay  would   not 
substantially harm other parties; and 4) a stay would serve  the 
public interest (citing Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FPC, 
259 F.2d  921, 925  (D.C. Cir.  1958), as  modified,  Washington 
Metro. Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 
843 (D.C. Cir. 1977)).

9    VITELCO, 7  FCC Rcd  at 4236-37,   13;  see also  Heritage 
Cablevision Associates  of  Dallas,  L.P.  And  Texas  Cable  TV 
Association, Inc. v. Texas Utilities Electric Company, 8 FCC Rcd 
373, 374,  14  (Comm. Carr. Bur.  1993) (effectively staying  a 
requirement that  defendant refund  amounts to  complainant  and 
requiring defendant to pay the refund amounts into an  interest-
bearing  escrow  account   pending  resolution  of   defendant's 
appeal).  This does not mean that applicants for stays of  other 
kinds of  Commission decisions  are relieved  of the  burden  of 
meeting the traditional four-part test for a stay.

10   See,  e.g.,  American  Manufacturers  Mutual  Ins.  Co.  v. 
American Broadcasting-Paramount  Theatres, Inc.,  87 S.Ct  1,  3 
(1966) (holding that  a party  taking an appeal  from a  federal 
district court is entitled  to a stay of  a money judgment as  a 
matter of right  if the party  posts a bond  in accordance  with 
F.R.C.P. 62(d)).

11   GCI's contention that the  Commission has refused to  grant 
stays  despite  offers  to  place  funds  into  escrow  is   not 
persuasive.  GCI Opposition at 8.   In one of the two  decisions 
GCI cites to supports its argument, there is no indication  that 
the  stay  movant  offered  to   place  any  funds  in   escrow.  
Investigation of Equal  Access Date Elements  Filed Pursuant  to 
Waivers of Part 69, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 1988 FCC LEXIS 
658 (Comm. Carr.  Bur. 1988).   The second  decision involved  a 
request to stay the effectiveness of a new rule governing price-
cap carriers.  Only  two of  many affected  carriers offered  to 
place funds into  escrow to  account for  the potential  amounts 
they would have to pay customers once the new rule into  effect.  
None of the  other carriers affected  by the new  rule made  the 
same offer to protect the interests of their affected customers.  
Price Cap Regulation of Local  Exchange Carriers, Order, 10  FCC 
Rcd 11979, 11985 (1995).

12   We emphasize  that, by  granting  the limited  Request  For 
Stay, we do not agree with ACS that ACS is likely to prevail  on 
the merits on any of the issues ACS addresses in its Request for 
Stay.  Request for Stay at 4-7. However, because we have decided 
to grant the  stay for  other reasons,  it is  not necessary  to 
address ACS's substantive arguments in this Order.