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

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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


APCC Services, Inc.,                         )
Data Net Systems, LLC,                  )
Davel Communications, Inc.,                  )
Jaroth, Inc. dba Pacific Telemanagement      )
Services, and                           )
Intera Communications Corp.,            )
                                   )
Complainants,                           )
                                   )
     v.                            )    File No. EB-02-MD-014
                                   )
Vertex Group d/b/a Premiere Telemedia, Inc., )
                                   )
Defendant.                              )


                              ORDER

     Adopted:  November 21, 2002             Released:  November 
22, 2002

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


       1.      On April 19, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et 
          al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants''), filed with 
          this Commission a formal complaint against Vertex 
          Group d/b/a Premiere Telemedia, Inc. (``Vertex'') 
          pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act 
          of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').1  The complaint 
          alleges that Vertex failed to pay dial-around 
          compensation to Complainants for certain 
          categories of completed coinless calls originating 
          from payphones, in violation of Commission rules 
          and orders.2  Due to a series of extensions, the 
          Defendant filed its answer in this proceeding on 
          September 19, 2002.3

       2.      During a telephone conference held on 
          approximately September 20, 2002, the parties 
          indicated that they were engaged in ongoing 
          settlement negotiations, and that there was a 
          significant likelihood of settlement.  To 
          facilitate these ongoing negotiations, 
          Complainants requested an extension of time by 
          which they had to file their reply, to October 16, 
          2002.  The Complainants formalized this request in 
          a letter dated September 23, 2002, in which they 
          stated that the additional time would enable the 
          parties to exchange and analyze additional call 
          data, which would hopefully allow the parties to 
          settle the dispute.4  This request was granted by 
          the Chief of the Market Disputes Resolution 
          Division of the Enforcement Bureau on September 
          24, 2002.  On October 11, 2002, the parties 
          jointly made another similar request for extension 
          of time for the Complainants to file their reply.5  
          The parties repeated that they were continuing to 
          engage in active settlement negotiations, and that 
          the additional time ``will foster the parties' 
          efforts at an expeditious settlement.''6  This 
          request was also granted.7  A status conference 
          was later scheduled for November 13, 2002.8

       3.      On November 7, 2002, Complainants and Vertex filed 
          a joint motion requesting that we dismiss the formal 
          complaint in this proceeding with prejudice.9  We grant 
          Complainant's motion to dismiss the complaint, with 
          prejudice.  We find that dismissal at this stage is 
          appropriate, and will serve the public interest by 
          promoting the private resolution of disputes and 
          eliminating the expenditure of further time and 
          resources of the parties and of the Commission.

       4.      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, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 
          of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.720-1.736, 
          64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by 
          sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 
          C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned 
          complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety 
          and the proceeding IS TERMINATED.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  


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

1         47 U.S.C.  208.
2         See 47 C.F.R.  64.1300-64.1320.  These rules were 
promulgated to implement section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  276.  
     3    See APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Vertex Group, 
Vertex Group's Answer to Formal Complaint, File No. EB-02-MD-014. 
     4    APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Vertex Group, Letter 
from Jeffrey H. Tignor, Counsel for Complainants, and Lawrence M. 
Brenton, Counsel for Defendant, to Warren Firschein, Attorney, 
Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, 
File No. EB-02-MD-014 (dated September 23, 2002).
5         APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Vertex Group, Letter 
from Jeffrey H. Tignor, Counsel for Complainants, and Lawrence M. 
Brenton, Counsel for Defendant, to Warren Firschein, Attorney, 
Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, 
File No. EB-02-MD-014 (dated October 11, 2002).
6         Id.
7         See APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Vertex Group, 
Letter from Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes 
Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Allan C. 
Hubbard, Counsel for Complainants, and Lawrence M. Brenton, 
Counsel for Defendant, File No. EB-02-MD-014 (October 15, 2002).
8         See APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Vertex Group, 
Letter from Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes 
Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Allan C. 
Hubbard, Counsel for Complainants, and Lawrence M. Brenton, 
Counsel for Defendant, File No. EB-02-MD-014 (October 23, 2002).
9         APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Vertex Group, Joint 
Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint With Prejudice, File No. EB-
02-MD-014 (filed November 7, 2002).