Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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
Adobe Acrobat version (above).

*****************************************************************



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


In the matter of                 )
                                )
METROCALL, INC.,                 )
                                )    File Nos. E-98-16, E-98-17
         Complainant,           )
                                )
    v.                          )
                                )
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE      )
COMPANY and PACIFIC BELL         )
TELEPHONE COMPANY,               )
                                )
         Defendants.            )

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
              ON SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

   Adopted:  September 26, 2001         Released:  October 2, 
2001

By the Commission:

                        I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Memorandum  Opinion and  Order on  Supplemental 
Complaint  for  Damages,  we   determine  the  damages  owed   by 
defendants Pacific  Bell  Telephone Company  (``Pac  Bell'')  and 
Southwestern Bell  Telephone  Company  (``SWBT'')  (collectively, 
``the  SBC   defendants'')   to   complainant   Metrocall,   Inc. 
(``Metrocall'')  pursuant  to  our  previous  decision  in   this 
proceeding.1  We  find  that Metrocall  is  not entitled  to  any 
refund of its payment from the SBC defendants because, even under 
Metrocall's assumptions, Metrocall's payments did not exceed  the 
lawful charges  on  the relevant  accounts  for the  services  at 
issue.  We also reject Metrocall's demands for consequential  and 
punitive damages.  Finally, we  deny Metrocall's request that  we 
reconsider certain  aspects  of  our decision  in  the  Liability 
Order.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   The facts and circumstances leading to our decision  in 
the Liability Order  are fully  recited therein and  we need  not 
reiterate them at length.   In that decision,  we found that  the 
SBC defendants and other  Local Exchange Carriers (``LECs'')  had 
violated Commission rules and the Communications Act of 1934,  as 
amended, by charging  Metrocall and another  paging carrier,  TSR 
Wireless, Inc.  (``TSR''), for  the delivery  of  LEC-originated, 
intraMTA   traffic   to   the   paging   companies'   point    of 
interconnection, and  by imposing  non-cost-based charges  solely 
for the  paging companies'  use of  Direct Inward  Dialing  (DID) 
numbers.2  We rejected claims by  Metrocall and TSR that the  SBC 
defendants had  improperly charged  for other  services, such  as 
reverse billing  and the  delivery of  transiting traffic.3   The 
Liability Order  deferred  the question  of  damages,  permitting 
Metrocall and  TSR to  file supplemental  complaints for  damages 
within 60 days after release of our decision.

     3.   In its amended supplemental  complaint and an  addendum 
thereto, Metrocall seeks the  return of $297,361.53 it  allegedly 
paid in illegal charges to Pac Bell and the return of $243,411.03 
it allegedly paid to SWBT, plus interest on each of these  sums.4  
Metrocall also  wants removal  of any  illegal charges  from  the 
outstanding balances  on its  accounts with  the SBC  defendants, 
although Metrocall does  not state  precisely how  much of  these 
balances constitute illegal charges.5  Metrocall demands $132,463 
in consequential damages for the legal fees incurred during  this 
proceeding,6 and $7  million in punitive  damages, to be  divided 
among the  SBC  defendants  and  their  co-defendant,  U  S  West 
Communications,  Inc.  (now   Qwest  Corporation   (``Qwest'')).7  
Metrocall also seeks call  termination compensation, although  it 
does not state  precisely how much  the SBC defendants  allegedly 
owe.8  Finally, Metrocall requests that the Commission hold that, 
contrary to the Liability Order,  Metrocall does not have to  pay 
LECs for the delivery of transiting traffic.9  The SBC defendants 
have responded to each of these damage claims.

                      III.      DISCUSSION

     III.A.    Metrocall Is  Not Entitled  To The  Refund Of  Its 
          Payments As  Compensatory Damages  Because, Even  Under 
          Metrocall's Assumptions, It Paid  Less Than The  Amount 
          Of  Lawful  Charges  On  Its  Accounts  With  The   SBC 
          Defendants.

     4.   As  compensatory  damages  from  the  SBC   defendants, 
Metrocall seeks a refund  of its payments  to the SBC  defendants 
for charges deemed  unlawful in the  Liability Order.   Metrocall 
determines this amount  by subtracting the  charges for  services 
deemed lawful in the Liability  Order from its total payments  to 
the SBC  defendants  for  the relevant  accounts.   According  to 
Metrocall, after subtracting the lawful charges from its payments 
to the SBC defendants since November 1996, it is entitled to  the 
return of  about $540,000  plus interest.   Metrocall also  seeks 
``full  credit   for   any   outstanding   balances   for   local 
interconnection charges and/or DID-related charges.''10  We  find 
that Metrocall  is  not  entitled  to any  refund  from  the  SBC 
defendants because,  even  assuming  the  company's  figures  are 
correct, it  still  underpaid  for  the  lawful  charges  on  its 
interconnection-related accounts with the SBC defendants.

     5.   In the  Liability Order,  we found  that LECs  may  not 
charge one-way paging carriers for the delivery of intra-MTA LEC-
originated   traffic   to   the   paging   carrier's   point   of 
interconnection.11  We  also  found  that  LECs  may  not  impose 
recurring charges solely for  the use of  numbers.12  But we  did 
not find that all charges imposed by the LECs on paging  carriers 
were illegal.  Rather, we held that LECs may charge for a  number 
of services, including (1) ``wide area calling'' services,13  (2) 
a reasonable initial connection charge to compensate the LECs for 
the cost  of  software  and other  charges  associated  with  new 
numbers, (3)  the delivery  of ``transiting''  traffic, that  is, 
traffic  that   originates  from   a  carrier   other  than   the 
interconnecting LEC  but nonetheless  is carried  over the  LEC's 
network to that of the paging carrier,14 and (4) the delivery  of 
traffic that originates or terminates outside the MTA.15

     6.   The parties  agree that  we should  assess  Metrocall's 
damages  claim  based   on  comparing  the   lawful  charges   on 
Metrocall's accounts with the SBC defendants against  Metrocall's 
payments to the  SBC defendants on  those accounts.  The  parties 
also  agree  that,  between  November  1996  and  October   2000, 
Metrocall paid  the SBC  defendants for  both illegal  and  legal 
charges under the Liability  Order, but generally stopped  paying 
for most  interconnection-related services  about December  1998.  
The parties disagree, however, about how much Metrocall paid SWBT 
and Pac  Bell,  whether certain  charges  were lawful  under  the 
Liability Order or  were properly  charged to  Metrocall even  if 
legal, and the balance on Metrocall's accounts with each company.  
The SBC defendants assert that Metrocall's figures are incorrect, 
and have provided figures based on their records of the Metrocall 
accounts.  For purposes of this decision, however, we will assume 
Metrocall's  allegations  are   true  because,   even  based   on 
Metrocall's calculations,  the  company  did  not  make  payments 
greater than the lawful charges on its relevant accounts with Pac 
Bell and SWBT.  

     7.   Pac Bell Charges.  According to Metrocall, it  incurred 
$3,478,583.64 in charges  on its accounts  with Pac Bell  between 
November 1996  and May  2000.16   During that  period,  Metrocall 
alleges that it  paid Pac Bell  $1,116,569.97.17  Metrocall  does 
not  dispute  that   it  incurred  lawful   charges  in   several 
categories,  such  as  Monthly  Service  charges,  Monthly  Usage 
charges, Remote Call Forwarding,  and long-distance calls,  among 
others.18   According  to  Metrocall,  these  charges  constitute 
$819,208.44.  Metrocall subtracts  the undisputed lawful  charges 
from its  total payments  and argues  that it  is entitled  to  a 
refund of $297,361.53,19 plus interest, for payments on ``Type  1 
and Type  2  interconnection charges  and  DID-related  charges'' 
deemed unlawful under the Liability Order.20

     8.   Metrocall ignores the language of the Liability  Order.  
In that  decision,  we  unambiguously permitted  LECs  to  charge 
paging carriers  for transiting  traffic.  Although  it  reflects 
other charges  deemed lawful  in  the Liability  Order,  however, 
Metrocall's damages calculation omits  these lawful charges  from 
its calculations.  Though the SBC defendants raised this issue in 
their Answer,21 Metrocall  never offered a  means of  determining 
its transiting traffic charges.  Instead, Metrocall avers in  its 
Reply that it  owes nothing  for charges  relating to  transiting 
traffic, then suggests that, even if the SBC defendants  properly 
charged Metrocall for such traffic, ``they have no legal right to 
argue that claim  in this  proceeding; they failed  to raise  any 
counter-claims during the liability phase of this proceeding, and 
are legally barred from doing so now.''22  Metrocall also  points 
to a petition for reconsideration of the Commission's decision on 
transiting traffic, suggesting that the question of its liability 
for transiting traffic is still open.23

     9.   The   Liability    Order   explicitly    states    that 
``Complainants are required to pay for `transiting traffic,' that 
is, traffic  that  originates  from  a  carrier  other  than  the 
interconnecting LEC  but  nonetheless  is carried  over  the  LEC 
network to the paging carrier's network.''24  Some percentage  of 
the interconnection-related charges imposed by the SBC defendants 
on Metrocall constitutes such traffic,  and they are entitled  to 
charge  for  it.   We  reject  Metrocall's  claim  that  the  SBC 
defendants had to  raise the issue  of Metrocall's liability  for 
transiting traffic charges as a counterclaim for those charges to 
be considered  here.25   In considering  the  transiting  charges 
applicable  to  Metrocall's  accounts,  we  are  not  determining 
whether to award damages to  the SBC defendants.  Rather, we  are 
following the  measure  of  damages set  forth  by  Metrocall  -- 
weighing the amount Metrocall allegedly paid on its accounts with 
the SBC  defendants against  the charges  lawfully applicable  to 
those accounts, in order to determine the amount, if any, of  any 
refund  to  Metrocall.   It  is  therefore  appropriate  that  we 
consider the amount of the transiting traffic charges.  

     10.  Further,  we   reject   Metrocall's  claim   that   the 
transiting traffic  issue  is  somehow  uncertain  because  of  a 
pending petition  for  reconsideration  of  that  aspect  of  the 
Liability Order.   The existence  of a  reconsideration  petition 
(which Metrocall neither filed nor supported) does not alter  the 
effect of our  holding.  In any  event, we have  now denied  that 
petition.26

     11.  In  light  of  Metrocall's   failure  to  suggest   any 
alternative, we will use, for  purposes of this proceeding  only, 
the 26 percent transiting factor  supplied by Pac Bell, which  is 
based on a  1999 interconnection  agreement between  the LEC  and 
Metrocall.  Based on Metrocall's  allegations, Pac Bell  assessed 
Metrocall $2,659,375.20 in interconnection-related charges.27  If 
we apply the 26 percent transiting factor to the interconnection-
related charges identified by  Metrocall, we find that  Metrocall 
incurred $691,437.55 in transiting traffic charges.28  

     12.  As noted above, Metrocall admits that it is responsible 
for $819,208.44 in ``lawful'' charges.  The sum of these  charges 
and the  $691,437.55 in  transiting traffic  charges leads  to  a 
balance  of  $1,510,645.99  in  lawfully  imposed  charges.   But 
Metrocall, by  its  own  calculations, has  paid  Pac  Bell  only 
$1,116,569.97.   Therefore,  even  assuming  Metrocall's  account 
figures, Metrocall is not entitled to any refund of its  payments 
to Pac Bell  as compensatory damages  because the lawful  charges 
imposed by Pac Bell minus Metrocall's total payments to Pac  Bell 
results in  an  outstanding  balance of  $394,076.02  in  charges 
permitted under the Liability  Order, which are  due and owed  to 
Pac Bell.29

     13.  SWBT Charges.   We  reach  a  similar  conclusion  with 
respect  to   Metrocall's   claim  against   SWBT.    Metrocall's 
spreadsheets state that it  incurred $4,502,364.44 in charges  on 
its accounts  with  SWBT between  November  1996 and  July  2000.  
During that period, Metrocall alleges that it paid $800,382.49 on 
those same accounts.30   Metrocall does  not dispute  that it  is 
responsible for $348,152.33 in Monthly Usage charges by SWBT,  as 
well as the  balances on accounts  unrelated to  interconnection, 
amounting to $208,819.13.  According to Metrocall, these  charges 
constitute $556,971.46.  Metrocall alleges that it is entitled to 
its total payments minus what it considers to be lawful  charges, 
resulting in  a refund  of $243,411.03  for payments  on  charges 
deemed unlawful under the Liability Order.31

     14.  Once again,  however, Metrocall  ignores the  Liability 
Order's finding  that LECs  may  lawfully charge  for  transiting 
traffic.  SWBT  provides  an  average  transiting  factor  of  23 
percent, derived by averaging  the transiting factors applied  in 
the five SWBT states  (Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri,  and 
Texas).  As  we  did with  the  Pac  Bell charges,  in  light  of 
Metrocall's failure  to  offer  any alternative,  we  will  apply 
SWBT's transiting  factor to  Metrocall's outstanding  balance.32  
Even if  we  exclude the  charges  Metrocall deems  unrelated  to 
interconnection, as well as  $84,500.78 in Minimum Monthly  Usage 
charges that Metrocall  deems unlawful,33 Metrocall  nevertheless 
incurred $3,860,848.20 in interconnection-related charges,  based 
on the figures provided by Metrocall.34  Applying the 23  percent 
transiting factor  to  this  balance results  in  $887,995.09  in 
transiting traffic charges.35  Adding  the $556,971.46 for  which 
Metrocall admits responsibility and the $887,995.09 in transiting 
traffic  charges,  results  in  a  balance  of  $1,444,966.55  in 
lawfully  imposed   charges.    But   Metrocall,   by   its   own 
calculations, has paid  SWBT only  $800,382.49.  Therefore,  even 
assuming Metrocall's account figures,  Metrocall is not  entitled 
to the refund of any overpayment as compensatory damages  because 
it appears to have underpaid SWBT by at least $644,584.06,  after 
subtracting the  total  lawful  charges  from  Metrocall's  total 
payments.36

     15.  As part of  its compensatory  damages claim,  Metrocall 
also seeks ``full credit for  any outstanding balances for  local 
interconnection   charges    and/or   DID-related    charges.''37  
Metrocall has failed to  state a claim  regarding this aspect  of 
its supplemental  complaint.   At  no  point  in  this  case  has 
Metrocall offered a clear estimate of these charges,38 forcing us 
to parse through confusing  spreadsheets attached to  Metrocall's 
pleadings in  search  of  hard numbers  for  use  in  calculating 
Metrocall's  compensatory  damages.   We  have  used  Metrocall's 
figures and methodology in our determination of its  compensatory 
damages claim, but  caution that  our decision  does not  endorse 
Metrocall's  figures  and  methodology.   Moreover,  we  do   not 
necessarily accept Metrocall's categorization of specific charges 
as ``lawful'' or ``illegal.''   Rather, our analysis is  intended 
to show  that, even  using Metrocall's  assumptions, the  company 
should receive  no  refund  of any  overpayment  as  compensatory 
damages because it actually underpaid its relevant accounts  with 
Pac Bell  and  SWBT  by at  least  $394,076.02  and  $644,584.06, 
respectively.  In  light of  Metrocall's failure  to support  its 
request that the  Commission modify its  outstanding balance,  we 
reject Metrocall's claim.  

     III.B.    Metrocall Is  Not  Entitled  To  Consequential  Or 
          Punitive Damages.

     16.  Metrocall also seeks consequential and punitive damages 
against the SBC defendants.  We find that Metrocall's request for 
``consequential''  damages   is,  effectively,   a  request   for 
attorneys' fees, which we  have no authority  to award under  the 
Act.  Moreover, even assuming we have authority to award punitive 
damages, we find that such damages are unwarranted here.

     17.  Metrocall  alleges  that   it  suffered   consequential 
damages from  the  SBC defendants'  insistence  that it  pay  for 
charges deemed illegal under the Liability Order, because it  had 
to pursue legal actions, including this proceeding, to  ``force'' 
defendants to comply with the law.  According to Metrocall, it is 
``well-established that, pursuant to Sections 206 and 207 of  the 
[Communications] Act,  any  common  carrier  ...  is  liable  for 
consequential damages  when, due  to its  violation of  the  Act, 
and/or the  Commission's  rules  and  orders,  it  harms  another 
party.''39  Metrocall therefore  seeks $132,463 in  consequential 
damages for ``the full  amount of the legal  fees it incurred  in 
prosecuting the [complaints in this proceeding].''40 

     18.  Thus, Metrocall explicitly seeks its attorneys' fees in 
this proceeding as ``consequential damages.''  But we  repeatedly 
have held that the  Commission lacks authority  under the Act  to 
award attorneys' fees as damages.41  Indeed, in the same case and 
the same paragraph Metrocall cites  for the proposition that  the 
Commission  may  award  consequential  damages,  the   Commission 
explicitly stated ``[w]e  have no power  to award attorneys  fees 
and that request  will be denied.''42   Metrocall argues that  we 
may nevertheless award attorneys fees arising as a result of  the 
SBC defendants' actions, citing to a Commission decision in which 
we held  that consequential  damages may  lie for  ``interference 
with  the  conduct   of  [complainant's]   business,  for   which 
Defendants were responsible  directly resulting in  the need  for 
additional  professional  services,  loans  and  expenditure   of 
time.''43   But  the  ``professional  services''  to  which  that 
decision refers were not  legal services, but rather  engineering 
services unrelated to the prosecution of the formal complaint.44  

     19.  We also reject Metrocall's demand for punitive  damages 
against the  SBC defendants.   Even assuming  that we  have  such 
authority (an issue we need not address here), the facts here  do 
not justify an award of punitive damages.  Metrocall argues  that 
the  SBC  defendants  have   engaged  in  ``wanton  and   willful 
misconduct'' by  continuing to  charge  paging carriers  for  the 
delivery of LEC-originated traffic despite the Local  Competition 
Order's language to  the contrary,  as well as  letters from  the 
Common Carrier Bureau in 1997 ``re-affirming'' that holding.45  

     20.  While we are troubled by the SBC defendants' persistent 
refusal to acknowledge the effect of the Local Competition Order, 
we  find  that  the  mere  act  of  billing  Metrocall  does  not 
demonstrate  that   the  SBC   defendants  acted   ``maliciously, 
wantonly, or with a recklessness that betokens improper motive or 
vindictiveness.''46  Indeed,  as discussed  above, a  significant 
portion of  the  bills that  the  SBC defendants  sent  Metrocall 
covered services  that we  have recognized  are properly  charged 
CMRS carriers, including charges  for the delivery of  transiting 
traffic.  We also note that, despite Metrocall's admitted balance 
of more than  $6 million with  the SBC defendants,  and the  fact 
that Metrocall largely refused to  pay for any services, the  SBC 
defendants continued to provide service to the paging  carrier.47  
Even assuming we  had the  authority to  grant punitive  damages, 
such behavior  hardly  constitutes the  ``wanton,  oppressive  or 
malicious intent or ... incompetence or recklessness'' that might 
justify such an award.48

     III.C.    Metrocall Waived Its Right To Dispute Our Holdings 
          In the Liability Order By Not Filing A Petition For 
          Reconsideration Or Petition For Review.

     21.  Finally,  Metrocall  challenges  two  aspects  of   our 
decision in  the  Liability  Order.   Specifically,  although  it 
acknowledges the Liability Order's  holding that LECs may  charge 
paging carriers for transiting traffic, Metrocall states that  it 
``disagrees with this analysis and asks that the Commission  hold 
that Metrocall  does not  have  to pay  the LECs  for  transiting 
traffic.''49  We  do  not  reach Metrocall's  arguments  on  this 
subject  because  its  request  is  procedurally  improper.    If 
Metrocall disagreed with some aspect  of the Liability Order,  it 
should  have  filed  a  petition  for  reconsideration  with  the 
Commission or  filed  a  petition for  review  with  the  federal 
appellate courts.  This  proceeding is  not the  proper forum  in 
which to challenge the conclusions of the Liability Order.

     22.  Similarly, Metrocall challenges  the Liability  Order's 
finding that the paging company  ``did not seek compensation  for 
the transport and termination of LEC-originated traffic'' in this 
proceeding.50  Metrocall argues  that this  holding was  mistaken 
and that the company has properly sought recovery for termination 
of LEC-originated  traffic.51   As with  the  transiting  traffic 
issue, however, Metrocall should have  raised this argument in  a 
petition for reconsideration or a  petition for review, not in  a 
supplemental complaint for damages.   Metrocall contends that  it 
may seek compensation  for the transport  and termination of  LEC 
originated traffic in its supplemental complaint because it asked 
the Commission to bifurcate the liability and damages aspects  of 
this proceeding  and now  is  simply ``request[ing]  damages  for 
defendants' violation of the call termination rules.''52  But the 
Liability Order  did  not  reach  the  question  of  whether  the 
defendants violated those rules, because it found that  Metrocall 
had never raised such  a claim in the  first place.53  Without  a 
finding that the  SBC defendants actually  violated any rule,  we 
cannot make any damages calculation here.

IV.  CONCLUSION

     23.  Based on our analysis above, we deny Metrocall's claims 
for compensatory, consequential, and  punitive damages.  We  also 
deny Metrocall's demands that we  revisit our conclusions in  the 
Liability Order.

V.   ORDERING CLAUSES

     24.  Accordingly, IT  IS ORDERED,  pursuant to  sections  1, 
4(i), 4(j), and  206-209 of  the Communications Act  of 1934,  as 
amended, 47 U.S.C.  151,  154(i), 154(j), 206-209, and  section 
1.722  of  the  Commission's  rules,  47  C.F.R.    1.722,  that 
Metrocall, Inc.'s  amended  supplemental  complaint  for  damages 
against Pacific  Bell  Telephone Company  and  Southwestern  Bell 
Telephone Company is DENIED.

                               FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                               Magalie Roman Salas
                               Secretary
_________________________

1         TSR Wireless, LLC v. U S West Communications, Inc.,  15 
FCC Rcd 11166 (2000)  (``Liability Order''), petition for  review 
denied sub nom. Qwest Corporation v. FCC, 252 F.3d 462 (D.C. Cir. 
2001).
2         Liability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11176, para. 18,  11185-
86, para. 33.
3         Id., 15 FCC Rcd at 11177, para. 19, 11184, para. 30.
4         See generally  Addendum to  Supplemental Complaint  for 
Damages, File Nos. E-98-16 et al. (Oct. 27, 2000) (``Addendum'').  
The Addendum  corrected  material  discrepancies  in  Metrocall's 
Amended  Complaint  regarding  Metrocall's  compensatory  damages 
claim.  See Amended Supplemental Complaint for Damages, File Nos. 
E-98-16  et  al.  (Sept.   13,  2000).   Although  the   Addendum 
substantially revised Metrocall's compensatory damages claim,  it 
did not revise  the Amended Complaint's  demand for punitive  and 
consequential damages, and did  not provide recalculated  figures 
regarding Metrocall's outstanding balance.
5         See Addendum  at 9,  para. 16,  10, para.  19  (seeking 
``full credit for any outstanding balance of interconnection  and 
DID-related charges'').
6         Amended Complaint at 10, para. 26.
7         Id. at  14,  para.  33.  Metrocall  and  Qwest  settled 
Metrocall's complaint  against  Qwest  in its  entirety  and  the 
Enforcement Bureau released an order granting the parties'  joint 
motion to dismiss on January 8, 2001.  See Metrocall, Inc. v. U S 
West Communications,  Inc., Order,  File No.  E-98-18 (Enf.  Bur. 
rel. Jan. 8, 2001).
8    Amended Complaint at 15-16, paras. 34-35.
9         Id. at 17, para. 38.
10        See, e.g., Addendum at 10, para. 19.
11        Liability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11176, para. 18.
12        Id., 15 FCC Rcd at 11185-86, para. 33.
13        ``Wide  area   calling,''  also   known  as   ``reverse 
billing'' or ``reverse toll,'' is a service in which a LEC agrees 
with an interconnector not to  assess toll charges on calls  from 
the LEC's  end  users  to  the  interconnector's  end  users,  in 
exchange for which the interconnector  pays the LEC a  per-minute 
fee to recover the LEC's toll carriage costs.  Id., 15 FCC Rcd at 
11167, para. 2 n.6.   In essence, paging  carriers use wide  area 
calling to place  toll charges  on pager users,  rather than  the 
people calling them.
14   Id., 15 FCC Rcd at 11177, para. 19 n.70.
15   Id., 15 FCC Rcd at 11184, para. 31.
16   Addendum, Exhibit 2 at 6.
17   Id. at 8, para. 15, Exhibit 2 at 6.
18   Id.  at  7-8,  paras.   14,  16.   Metrocall  concedes   its 
responsibility for  non-recurring charges  for DID  numbers,  but 
asserts that Pac Bell's  one-time charges are unreasonably  high.  
Metrocall  does  not   quantify  these  charges   or  offer   any 
justification for its assertion.  Because we are operating  under 
Metrocall's  assumptions  here  solely   for  purposes  of   this 
decision, however, we do not reach this issue.
19   Metrocall's calculation  assumes that  its damages  are  its 
total  payments   to   Pac   Bell  minus   any   lawful   charges 
($1,116,569.97 - $819,208.44 = $297,361.53).
20   As noted above,  solely for  purposes of  this decision,  we 
assume that  Metrocall's account  calculations are  correct.   We 
note  that  the  SBC  defendants  allege  several  problems  with 
Metrocall's calculations, which they  claim do not include  other 
charges  permitted  under  the  Liability  Order,  such  as  non-
recurring charges for administration  of DID numbers,  transiting 
traffic charges, late fees, taxes, and other fees.
21   Answer of Defendants Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and 
Pacific Bell Telephone Company, File  Nos. E-98-16 et al. at  20, 
para. 52 (Oct. 3, 2000) (``Answer'').
22   Metrocall,   Inc.   Reply   to   Affirmative   Defenses   of 
Southwestern Bell Telephone  Company and  Pacific Bell  Telephone 
Company, File Nos. E-98-16 et al. at 8, para. 13 (Oct. 11,  2000) 
(``Reply'').
23   Letter from Frederick M. Joyce,  Alston & Bird, Counsel  for 
Metrocall, to William H.  Davenport, Enforcement Bureau,  Federal 
Communications Commission at 1-2 (October 18, 2000) (citing Small 
Business in  Telecommunications Petition  for Reconsideration  or 
Clarification, File Nos. E-98-13 et al. (filed July 21, 2000)).
24   Liability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11177, para. 19 n.70.
25   When Metrocall filed its original complaint (January  1998), 
the formal  complaint  rules  in effect  at  the  time  permitted 
defendants to file counterclaims with their answers.  47 C.F.R.  
1.725   (1997).    Our    current   rules   expressly    prohibit 
counterclaims.  47 C.F.R.  1.725.
26   See TSR Wireless, Inc.  et al. v.  U S West  Communications, 
Inc. et al.,  Order On Petition  for Reconsideration, FCC  01-169 
(Enf. Bur.  rel. May 22, 2001).
27   Metrocall's interconnection-related charges equal the  total 
Pac Bell  charges minus  the charges  considered ``unlawful''  by 
Metrocall ( $3,478,583.64 - $819,208.44 = $2,659,375.20).
28   Total  interconnection-related  payments  multiplied  by   a 
transiting factor equals  Metrocall's transiting traffic  charges 
($2,659,375.20 * 0.26 = $691,437.55).
29   Total ``lawful''  charges minus  Metrocall's total  payments 
equals Metrocall's  outstanding  balance for  ``lawful''  charges 
($1,510,645.99 - $1,116,569.97 = $394,076.02).
30   Addendum at 8, para. 15.
31   Metrocall alleges that its damages equal its total  payments 
minus  any   lawful   charges  ($800,382.49   -   $556,971.46   = 
$243,411.03).
32   Our use here of the transiting factors proposed by SWBT  and 
Pac Bell should not be read  as a finding that these factors  are 
necessarily correct.  We have used the SBC defendants' transiting 
factors in light of Metrocall's  failure either to contest  their 
validity or to provide transiting  factors of its own.  Nor  does 
our  decision  here  determine   how  much  Metrocall  owes   the 
defendants for the charges deemed lawful in the Liability  Order.  
Rather, we  are  determining,  based on  the  record  before  us, 
whether Metrocall could have paid  more than the SBC  defendants' 
lawful charges.
33   Metrocall claims that it  has no responsibility for  Minimum 
Monthly Usage charges on  its accounts, amounting to  $84,544.78.  
For purposes of this decision, we will not consider these charges 
in our calculations, since they do not affect our conclusion.
34   Total charges  minus  total ``lawful''  charges  equals  the 
amount  of  interconnection-related   charges  ($4,502,364.44   - 
$556,971.46 - $84,544.78 = $3,860,848.20).
35   Total  interconnection-related  charges  multiplied  by  the 
transiting factor equals the amount of transiting traffic charges 
($3,860,848.20 * 0.23 = $887,995.09).
36   Total ``lawful''  charges  plus transiting  traffic  charges 
minus the  amount  paid equals  Metrocall's  outstanding  balance 
($1,444,966.55 - $800,382.49 = $644,584.06).
37   Addendum at 10, para. 19.
38   In the parties' Joint Statement, Metrocall claims -- and the 
SBC defendants dispute -- that the SBC defendants ``should credit 
[its] outstanding balances for local interconnection charges  and 
DID-related  charges  in  the   following  amounts:   Pac   Bell, 
$2,544,000; SWBT, $2,707,935.72.''  Joint Statement, File Nos. E-
98-16  et  al.,  at   7  para.  15   (Oct.  17,  2000)   (``Joint 
Statement'').    As   mentioned    above,   however,    Metrocall 
subsequently  filed  an  Addendum  to  its  Amended  Supplemental 
Complaint which substantially revised the accounts relevant here, 
the categories of charges, and the amount on those charges.   The 
Addendum did not  include outstanding  balance figures.   Rather, 
Metrocall simply  demanded  ``full  credit  for  any  outstanding 
balances for  local  interconnection charges  and/or  DID-related 
charges,'' but  gave  no explanation  about  the amount  of  this 
``full credit,'' in light of its revised calculations.   Addendum 
at 10, para. 19.
39   Amended Complaint at 9, para.  23 (citing Comark Cable  Fund 
III,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  and  Notice  of   Apparent 
Liability for  Forfeiture,  100  FCC  2d  1244,  1257,  para.  31 
(1985)).
40   Amended Complaint at 10, para. 26.
41   See,   e.g.,   Ascom   Communications,   Inc.   v.    Sprint 
Communications Co., L.P., 15 FCC Rcd 3223, 3236, para. 31  (2000) 
(``[W]e have  no authority  to award  attorneys' fees  and  costs 
....''); Multimedia Cablevision, Inc.  v. Southwestern Bell  Tel. 
Co., 11 FCC  Rcd 11202, 11208,  para. 16 (1996)  (``We agree  ... 
that we  do  not have  authority  to grant  costs  and  attorneys 
fees.'').
42   Comark, 100 FCC 2d at 1257, para. 31 n.51.
43   Reply at 11, para.  21 (citing Edwards  Indus. v. Bell  Tel. 
Co. of Nevada, 74 FCC 2d 322, 328, para. 17 (1992)).
44   Id., 74 FCC 2d at 327, para. 16.
45   Amended Complaint at  11-12, paras. 28-30;  Reply at  12-13, 
paras. 25.
46   Strouth v. Western Union Tel. Co., Initial Decision, 70  FCC 
2d 525, 570,  para. 129  (ALJ 1977) (setting  forth standard  for 
punitive damages, even assuming Commission has authority to award 
such damages), aff'd in  relevant part, 70 FCC  2d 506 (Rev.  Bd. 
1978).  See also Krauss v. MCI  Telecom. Corp., 14 FCC Rcd  2770, 
2776, para. 12 (Com. Car. Bur. 1999) (declining to award punitive 
damages even  assuming,  without deciding,  that  Commission  has 
authority to do so;  ``Krauss has failed to  show that MCI  acted 
`maliciously, wantonly  or  with  a  recklessness  that  betokens 
improper motive or vindictiveness.''').
47   See Joint Statement  at 4,  para. 5 (Metrocall  and the  SBC 
defendants  stipulate  as   an  undisputed   fact  that   ``[t]he 
Defendants have never disconnected any existing service nor  have 
they ever  refused  to  provide additional  services  ordered  by 
Metrocall.'').
48   Strouth, 70 FCC 2d at 570, para. 130.
49   Amended Complaint at 17, para. 36.
50   Liability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11167, para. 1.
51   Amended Complaint at 15, para. 34.
52   Id. at 15, para. 34 n.52.
53   Liability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11167, para. 1.