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
                     Washington, D.C.  20554

In the Matter of                )
Direct Dial Audio Corp.,        )
     Complainant,               )
          v.                    )  File No. EB-02-MD-037
Verizon Communications, Inc.    )
and SBC Communications, Inc.,   )
     Defendants.                   )


     Adopted:  December 12, 2002             Released:  December 
13, 2002

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

1.   On or about October 9, 2002, Direct Dial Audio Corp. 
  (``DDA'') filed with the Commission documents complaining 
  about alleged violations of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
  amended (``Act''), by Verizon Communications, Inc. 
  (``Verizon'') and SBC Communications, Inc. (``SBC'').1  These 
  filings appear to be but the latest shots fired in a multi-
  forum, multi-year battle waged by DDA against Verizon and 

2.   It is difficult to discern precisely what these documents 
  purport to be under the Commission's rules.  Construing these 
  documents most liberally in favor of DDA, we will assume that 
  they were intended to be either applications for review of a 
  Commission staff decision to close an informal complaint 
  proceeding initiated by DDA pursuant to sections 1.711-1.718 
  of the Commission's rules,3 or formal complaints pursuant to 
  sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules.4  In either 
  situation, for the reasons described below, DDA's filings are 
  patently meritless, almost to the point of being frivolous.

3.   In 2001, DDA filed with the Commission an informal complaint 
  against Verizon and SBC concerning essentially the same 
  circumstances as those described in the documents filed by DDA 
  in this matter.5  Both SBC and Verizon responded to DDA's 
  informal complaint on June 15, 2001.6  Commission staff closed 
  that proceeding no later than March 21, 2002, when Commission 
  staff notified DDA in writing that ``the Consumer Information 
  Bureau has closed the file on the above referenced informal 
  complaint, in accordance with Section 1.717 of the 
  Commission's Rules.''7

4.   Under the Commission's rules, if DDA was dissatisfied with 
  either the defendants' responses or the Commission's closure 
  of the informal complaint proceeding, DDA's remedy was to 
  timely file a formal complaint, not to file an application for 
  review.8  Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that DDA could 
  have properly filed an application for review, DDA failed to 
  do so within the 30-day period prescribed by section 1.115(d) 
  of the Commission's rules.9  Thus, if the instant filings are, 
  indeed, applications for review, they must be dismissed.

5.   If, on the other hand, the instant filings are formal 
  complaints, they fail to conform to the Commission's rules in 
  ways too numerous to mention.10  Thus, the instant filings 
  must be dismissed for these failures, as well.

6.   In conclusion, we note that the Federal Court Opinions found 
  DDA's filings in those matters to be so frivolous as to 
  warrant an award of attorney fees as a sanction for violation 
  of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.  The instant filings in this matter 
  approach a similar level of frivolousness, and the Commission, 
  like federal courts, forbids such improper submissions.11  
  Consequently, we urge DDA and its counsel to act in accordance 
  with this prohibition in the future.7.   Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 
  1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
  amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 
  1.52, 1.115(d), and 1.711-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 
  C.F.R.  1.52, 1.115(d), 1.711-1.736, and authority delegated 
  by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 
  C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, the filings of DDA referenced herein 
  ARE DISMISSED, and the proceeding is TERMINATED.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  

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

1         For administrative convenience, these filings have been 
consolidated into one docket.  See 47 U.S.C.  154(j).
2         See, e.g., Direct Dial Audio Corp. v. SBC, et al., Case 
No. 1:02cv44 (W.D.Mich. Sept. 16, 2002) (Hillman, J.); Direct 
Dial Audio Corp. v. Verizon-GTE, et al., Case No. 1:02cv107 
(W.D.Mich. Sept. 16, 2002) (Hillman, J.) (collectively, ``Federal 
Court Opinions'').
3         47 C.F.R.  1.711-1.718.
4         47 C.F.R.  1.720-1.736.
5         Direct Dial Audio Corp. v. SBC and Verizon, IC-01-
6         See Letter dated March 21, 2002 from Thomas D. Wyatt, 
Associate Chief, Consumer Information Bureau, FCC to David 
Walker, Direct Dial Audio Corp., Direct Dial Audio Corp. v. SBC 
and Verizon, IC-01-N50387.
7         Id.
8         See 47 C.F.R.  1.717-1.718.
9         47 C.F.R.  1.115(d).
10        See 47 C.F.R.  1.720-1.722.
11        See, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  1.52; Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 
3030 (1996).