Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.


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

Metrocall, Inc.,                 )
         Complainant,           )
         v.                     )    File No.  EB-01-MD-008
Concord Telephone Co.,           )
         Defendant.             )


   Adopted:  June 6, 2002               Released:  June 10, 2002

By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, 
Enforcement Bureau:

1.   On April 6, 2001, Metrocall, Inc. (``Metrocall'') filed a 
  formal complaint against Concord Telephone Co. (``CTC'') 
  alleging that CTC violated section 201(b) of the 
  Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.703(b) 
  of the Commission's rules by: 1) charging Metrocall recurring 
  fees solely for the use of direct inward dial (``DID'') 
  numbers; and 2) charging Metrocall fees for DID facilities 
  used to transport CTC-originated traffic from CTC's network to 
  Metrocall's network.  On February 2, 2002, the Enforcement 
  Bureau (``Bureau'') released a Memorandum Opinion and Order 
  (``MO&O), granting in part and denying in part Metrocall's 
  complaint.1  On March 11, 2002, CTC filed an application for 
  review of the MO&O.  The Bureau then granted several joint 
  motions for extension of time for Metrocall to file an 
  opposition to CTC's application for review, and to file a 
  supplemental complaint for damages.2 

2.   On May 30, 2002, the parties filed a Joint Motion To Dismiss 
  With Prejudice, in which they request that the Commission 
  dismiss with prejudice Metrocall's formal complaint and CTC's 
  pending application for review because the parties have 
  reached a full and complete settlement of the dispute at 
  issue.  We are satisfied that dismissing this complaint and 
  the related application for review will serve the public 
  interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and 
  by eliminating the need for further litigation and the 
  expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and 
  of this Commission.

3.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 
  4(j), 201(b), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
  amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), and 208, 
  and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the 
  Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, that Metrocall 
  and CTC's Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice IS GRANTED. 

4.     IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is TERMINATED.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              Radhika V. Karmarkar
                              Deputy Chief, Market Disputes 
                              Resolution Division
                              Enforcement Bureau


1  Metrocall, Inc. v. Concord Telephone Co., Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, DA 02-301 (EB Feb. 8, 2002).

2  See e.g., Metrocall, Inc. v. Concord Telephone Co., Order, DA 
02-1136 (EB May 14, 2002).