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


In the Matter of                 )
                                )
Centennial Communications        )
Corp., Centennial                )
Communications Puerto Rico,      )
Inc., All America Cable &        )
Radio, Inc.,                     )
                                )
            Complainants,        )    File No. EB-01-MD-021
                                )
            v.                   )
                                )
Tricom USA, Inc.,                )

            Defendant.

               
                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted:  May 23, 2002               Released:  May 31, 2002  

By the Commission:

                        I.   INTRODUCTION

In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we dismiss a formal 
complaint that Centennial Communications Corporation 
(``Centennial'') and its affiliates Centennial Communications 
Puerto Rico, Inc. (``Centennial Puerto Rico'') and All America 
Cable & Radio, Inc. (``AACR'') filed against Tricom USA, Inc. 
(``Tricom USA'')1 pursuant to section 208 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').2  The Complaint alleges, inter 
alia, that Tricom USA violated section 63.14(a) of the 
Commission's rules3 and sections 201(b), 202(a), and 214 of the 
Act4 by accepting from its parent company in the Dominican 
Republic (Tricom S.A.) unfairly favorable rates, terms and 
conditions concerning interconnection and international call 
termination in the Dominican Republic.  As explained in detail 
below, principles of international comity lead us to dismiss the 
Complaint, because the Dominican Republic's telecommunications 
regulatory authority - Instituto Dominicano de las 
Telecomunicaciones (``INDOTEL'')5 - has either already addressed, 
or plans soon to address, all of the significant issues raised in 
this Complaint.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     II.A.     The Parties

Centennial is a telecommunications holding company incorporated 
in the United States.6 Centennial initiated this action on 
``behalf of itself and its affiliates.''7  Two of Centennial's 
affiliates are AACR and Centennial Puerto Rico.8

AACR is a British Virgin Islands corporation that is licensed to 
provide a full range of telecommunications services within and 
from the Dominican Republic,9 including international 
telecommunications services from the Dominican Republic.10  AACR 
is a subsidiary of All America Cables & Radio, Inc., a Cayman 
Islands corporation, of which Centennial owns 70 percent.11  
Centennial Puerto Rico is a telecommunications company that is 
incorporated in the United States and headquartered in Puerto 
Rico.12  It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Centennial, through 
various intermediate subsidiaries.13

Tricom USA is a United States carrier that is licensed, pursuant 
to section 214 of the Act,14 to provide international 
telecommunications services from the United States to foreign 
countries.15 Tricom USA is not a licensed carrier in the 
Dominican Republic and does not install, maintain, or operate 
telecommunications infrastructure in that country.16  Tricom USA 
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tricom S.A., a telecommunications 
carrier in the Dominican Republic that is not a party to this 
action.17  Tricom S.A. provides a full array of 
telecommunications services within and from the Dominican 
Republic, pursuant to INDOTEL's authorization.18

     II.B.     This Proceeding 

According to the Complaint, Tricom S.A. has supplied AACR with 
interconnection capacity in the Dominican Republic since 1995.19  
AACR allegedly uses this interconnection capacity to carry calls 
to Tricom S.A. subscribers that originate with AACR's domestic 
wireless subscribers in the Dominican Republic, or that originate 
with callers in other countries, such as the United States.20 

The Complaint pleads that AACR and Tricom S.A. first entered into 
a letter agreement regarding interconnection in February 1995.21  
The agreement allegedly provided that the parties would 
interconnect their networks solely for the purpose of terminating 
in-coming international traffic from AACR's facilities to Tricom 
S.A.'s local exchange network.22  In early 1998, AACR purportedly 
asked Tricom S.A. to provide additional circuits for AACR's 
growing domestic service, and proposed that the parties enter 
into a formal interconnection agreement that would address 
additional types of traffic not covered by the 1995 letter 
agreement.23  According to the Complaint, Tricom S.A. refused 
both requests.24  Although the parties exchanged correspondence 
regarding these issues between February 1999 and February 2000, 
the Complaint asserts that they failed to reach a resolution.25  

In March 2000, Tricom S.A. allegedly presented AACR with a draft 
interconnection agreement addressing the termination of all types 
of traffic.26  The Complaint avers that AACR refused to sign the 
proposed agreement on the ground that it allegedly contained a 
discriminatory volume discount provision under which AACR was 
required to have 75,000 lines in service before it could obtain 
the most favorable pricing on certain calls.27  

According to the complaint, in October 2000, Tricom S.A. 
provisioned additional circuits for interconnection to AACR; 
however, this capacity still was inadequate to meet AACR's 
needs.28  In December 2000, AACR allegedly paid Tricom S.A. for 
four additional T-1 lines, but Tricom S.A. refused to activate 
the lines until AACR signed Tricom S.A.'s draft interconnection 
agreement.29  AACR purportedly rejected Tricom S.A.'s proposed 
interconnection agreement, and in March 2001, AACR sent Tricom 
S.A. its own draft agreement.30  The Complaint asserts that 
AACR's draft agreement contained pricing terms that differed 
substantially from those proposed by Tricom S.A.  Specifically, 
AACR's draft agreement allegedly set forth a rate of 1.1 cents 
per minute for local termination of international calls to Tricom 
S.A. customers, known as the ``international access charge,''31 
while Tricom S.A.'s proposed agreement specified an international 
access charge of 4.2 cents.32  

By May 2001, Tricom S.A. and AACR purportedly had failed to reach 
an interconnection agreement, and Tricom S.A. still had not 
activated the T-1 lines that AACR purchased in December 2000.33  
The Complaint avers that, on May 2, 2001, AACR filed a petition 
with INDOTEL asking INDOTEL to intervene in AACR's 
interconnection dispute with Tricom S.A.34 

The Complaint advances two principal contentions.  First, the 
Complaint alleges that  Tricom S.A. has delayed providing 
interconnection capacity to AACR, a competitor in the Dominican 
Republic, and that Tricom S.A. does not impose similar capacity 
constraints on its affiliate, Tricom USA.35  The Complaint avers 
that Tricom S.A.'s failure to provide adequate interconnection 
capacity to AACR impeded the complainants' ability to complete 
both domestic and international calls to Tricom S.A. subscribers 
in the Dominican Republic.36  Second, the Complaint argues that 
Tricom S.A.'s practice of charging 4.2 cents to terminate 
international calls - allegedly well above the cost of that 
service - amounts to preferential treatment of Tricom USA.37  
Even if Tricom S.A. charges Tricom USA the same rate of 4.2 cents 
that it charges AACR for terminating international calls, the 
Complaint maintains that the charge does not represent a true 
cost to Tricom USA, because Tricom USA, in effect, pays itself 
when it remits payment to its parent.38  The Complaint contends 
that because Tricom USA has been free of the capacity constraints 
and excessive international call termination costs that Tricom 
S.A. has imposed on AACR, Tricom USA unlawfully has accepted 
preferential treatment from a foreign carrier in violation of 47 
C.F.R.  63.14(a) and the Section 214 Order,39 and has engaged in 
unreasonable and discriminatory practices in violation of 47 
U.S.C.  201(b) and 202(a).40

     II.C.     The Proceeding Before INDOTEL

          1.   INDOTEL's Authority

Under the Dominican Republic's telecommunications statute, 
INDOTEL has ``national jurisdiction'' over the regulation and 
control of telecommunications.41  The statute charges INDOTEL 
with guaranteeing ``the existence of an effective, fair and 
supportable competition in the provision of the public 
telecommunication services.''42  INDOTEL has authority, inter 
alia, to issue regulations,43 to ``[p]revent or correct 
anticompetitive or discriminatory practices . . . ,''44 and to 
``[s]ettle . . . disputes that may originate among providers . . 
. .''45  Such disputes may include disagreements about the terms 
of interconnection.46  Although the statute states that 
``[i]nterconnection agreements are to be freely negotiated by the 
parties,'' it provides that, in the case of disagreement, INDOTEL 
may intervene, at the request of the parties or on the 
government's initiative, to establish the conditions of 
interconnection.47

          2.   AACR's Petition 

The petition that AACR filed with INDOTEL, like the Complaint 
before this Commission, charged that Tricom S.A. had engaged in 
anticompetitive behavior by denying AACR additional capacity to 
interconnect the two companies' networks in the Dominican 
Republic.  The petition described in detail AACR's alleged 
unsuccessful efforts to obtain interconnection capacity from 
Tricom S.A. and to agree upon the terms of an interconnection 
agreement.48  The petition accused Tricom S.A. of delaying the 
completion of a formal interconnection agreement with AACR in 
order to avoid providing AACR with capacity that it could use to 
compete with Tricom S.A.49  According to the petition, Tricom's 
failure to provide additional interconnection capacity had 
adversely affected AACR's ability to terminate calls.50  

The petition also complained that the rate of 4.2 cents per 
minute that Tricom S.A. and other Dominican local operators 
charge for local termination of international calls was well 
above the rate they charge for local termination of domestic 
calls.51  The petition argued that this price differential was 
the result of an anticompetitive effort by Tricom S.A. and other 
companies that control local termination of calls to ``caus[e] 
the international business to operate with a minimum of 
profitability.''52  The petition also challenged as 
discriminatory Tricom S.A.'s requirement that AACR meet a 
threshold of 75,000 lines in service in order to obtain the most 
favorable pricing terms on certain calls.53  The petition 
acknowledged that the terms that Tricom S.A. sought to include in 
the parties' interconnection agreement were ``standard'' terms 
for such agreements in the Dominican Republic, but argued that 
the standard terms were inappropriate for modern 
telecommunications systems.54

In the petition's request for relief, AACR asked INDOTEL, inter 
alia, to issue an order setting the interconnection terms and 
conditions that would govern the AACR-Tricom S.A. relationship;55 
to declare that Tricom S.A. had violated DR Law 153 and damaged 
AACR by delaying execution of an interconnection agreement;56 to 
order Tricom S.A. to activate immediately the T-1 lines that AACR 
purchased in December 2000;57 and to impose monetary sanctions on 
Tricom S.A.58

          3.   INDOTEL's Rulings

On June 11, 2001, INDOTEL ordered Tricom S.A. to activate the 
four T-1 lines that AACR purchased in December 2000.59  Tricom 
S.A. complied with that order.60  INDOTEL also ordered the 
parties to appear for a hearing on the terms of the AACR-Tricom 
S.A. interconnection agreement.61  AACR and Tricom S.A. submitted 
further briefs, and INDOTEL held a hearing on June 25, 2001, 
during which each side was permitted to present oral argument 
concerning the terms of their interconnection agreement.62 

On August 21, 2001, INDOTEL ruled on the AACR-Tricom S.A. 
dispute.63  INDOTEL concluded, inter alia, that it could not 
find, as AACR urged, that Tricom S.A. delayed the execution of an 
interconnection agreement between the parties, observing instead 
that the ``contract has not been signed because of the 
disagreement promoted by both parties . . . .''64  INDOTEL 
further ruled that the interconnection terms that AACR claimed 
were discriminatory, specifically the 75,000 line threshold and 
4.2 cent access charge for termination of international calls, 
were standard interconnection terms in the Dominican Republic.65  
INDOTEL found that because the interconnection terms that AACR 
proposed were different from the standard terms, adopting AACR's 
terms would ``introduce distortion in the market,'' 66 and 
INDOTEL ordered AACR and Tricom S.A. to sign an interconnection 
agreement that does not ``introduce provisions that are 
discriminatory . . . .''67  Finally, INDOTEL stated its intention 
subsequently to assess the interconnection terms that AACR had 
proposed within the framework of new interconnection regulations 
and rate regulations that would apply to all carriers.68 

AACR filed a petition with INDOTEL seeking reconsideration of 
Resolution 053-01 and requesting that INDOTEL set the terms of 
the interconnection agreement between AACR and Tricom S.A.69  On 
September 13, 2001, INDOTEL issued a decision affirming its 
earlier ruling.70  INDOTEL again rejected AACR's claim that 
Tricom S.A. improperly had denied AACR access to its network:

          [T]he difference existing between AACR and 
          Tricom [S.A.] ... has not resulted from 
          the refusal by Tricom [S.A.] to allow AACR 
          access to its networks via the corresponding 
          interconnection contract; but rather the same 
          has been the consequence of the iron will of 
          each of the parties to sign the indicated 
          contract within the terms and conditions 
          proposed by each of them.71

As for the terms of interconnection, INDOTEL ruled that the 
``access charges included by the parties in their interconnection 
contract must be the same established in the market.''72  INDOTEL 
reiterated its concern that adopting AACR's proposed 
interconnection terms could cause ``distortions in the Dominican 
telecommunications market'' that may be ``at variance with the 
Principle of Non-Discrimination'' established in Dominican law.73   
INDOTEL also underscored its intent, in response to the issues 
AACR had raised, to initiate a regulatory process aimed at 
revising existing regulations dealing with rates and costs of 
services.74  In addition, INDOTEL ordered AACR and Tricom S.A. to 
enter into an interconnection agreement by no later than 
September 21, 2001 that included terms that Tricom S.A. 
previously had proposed.75  Neither party appealed this decision 
to a Dominican Court, and it now is final.76

On September 21, 2001, Tricom S.A. signed and delivered to AACR 
an interconnection agreement containing the terms that INDOTEL 
had mandated.77  AACR did not sign the proffered agreement, but 
instead attempted, unsuccessfully, to negotiate alternative terms 
with Tricom S.A.78  On November 9, 2001, INDOTEL issued a 
resolution stating that AACR would be subject to monetary 
sanctions under DR Law 153 if AACR refused to sign the 
interconnection agreement.79  Ten days later, AACR signed the 
interconnection agreement ``under protest.''80  The parties 
stipulate that, since executing the interconnection agreement, 
they have cooperated with each other regarding provisioning of T-
1 lines, and that neither party accuses the other of failing to 
cooperate in either payment for or installation of T-1 lines.81

                      III.      DISCUSSION

     A.The Doctrine of Comity Permits a Tribunal, in Its 
          Discretion, to Decline Jurisdiction Over a Matter that 
          Is Properly Adjudicated in a Foreign Tribunal.

The doctrine of international comity permits a tribunal to 
decline to exercise jurisdiction in a case properly adjudicated 
in a foreign tribunal.82  Comity reflects the broad concept of 
respect among nations.83  It embodies ``the recognition which one 
nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, 
or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to 
international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own 
citizens, or of other persons who are under the protection of its 
laws.''84  As the Commission has noted, such recognition is 
entirely discretionary by individual nations.85 Tribunals in the 
United States have invoked comity principles in deciding (i) 
whether to decline to adjudicate matters based on the pendency or 
availability of litigation in a foreign forum;86 (ii) whether to 
enforce foreign judgments;87 and (iii) whether to accept the 
judgments of foreign tribunals on a cause of action or a 
particular issue.88  In general, United States tribunals have 
deferred to the proceedings and judgments of foreign tribunals 
where the foreign forum afforded the litigants an opportunity for 
a full and fair adjudication, and there is no evidence of 
partiality, prejudice, or other special circumstances 
demonstrating that comity should not apply.89 

     B.We Apply the Doctrine of Comity and Decline to 
          Exercise Jurisdiction over the Complaint.

A number of important considerations support a decision to apply 
the doctrine of international comity and dismiss this case.  
First, the actions at issue here - Tricom S.A.'s alleged delay in 
providing interconnection capacity to AACR in the Dominican 
Republic, and Tricom S.A.'s allegedly excessive fee for local 
termination of international calls - were the subject of the 
proceeding before INDOTEL.  INDOTEL rejected AACR's claim that 
Tricom S.A. denied AACR interconnection, instead concluding that 
the parties' interconnection dispute resulted from each side's 
insistence on the interconnection terms it had proposed.90  
INDOTEL further found that adopting the non-standard pricing 
terms proposed by AACR for the Tricom S.A.-AACR relationship, 
while leaving the standard terms in place for other Dominican 
carriers, would cause distortions in the Dominican 
telecommunications market and would conflict with the non-
discrimination provisions of the Dominican telecommunications 
law.91  INDOTEL thus declined to adopt AACR's proposed non-
standard pricing terms when it set the terms of the Tricom S.A.-
AACR interconnection agreement.  In short, the facts and issues 
that INDOTEL addressed are the same ones that this Commission 
would have to consider in deciding the instant Complaint. 

Second, both parties apparently regard INDOTEL as an appropriate 
forum to address AACR's complaints about Tricom S.A.'s alleged 
anticompetitive conduct.  AACR asked INDOTEL to intervene in its 
dispute with Tricom S.A.,92 and Tricom USA consistently has 
argued that INDOTEL is the proper forum to decide AACR's 
claims.93

Third, there is no allegation that the proceedings before INDOTEL 
in any way were conducted unfairly or in a prejudicial manner.  
Indeed, Centennial never disputed Tricom's contention that AACR 
had a full and fair opportunity to litigate its claims before 
INDOTEL.94  INDOTEL rendered its final decision in this matter 
after receiving pleadings and briefs from both sides, holding an 
oral hearing, and reviewing AACR's motion for reconsideration of 
INDOTEL's initial decision.95  AACR was also accorded the right 
to appeal INDOTEL's decision to a Dominican court, although AACR 
chose not to exercise that right.96  AACR appears simply to be 
unhappy about the result INDOTEL reached.

Fourth, the relevant dealings between AACR and Tricom S.A. all 
took place in the Dominican Republic, the witnesses with 
knowledge of these facts are located in the Dominican Republic, 
and the relevant documents, all of which are written in Spanish, 
also are located there.  Consequently, from the standpoint of 
administrative convenience, INDOTEL is better-equipped to handle 
this dispute.

Finally, INDOTEL's announced intention to address AACR's 
challenge to the 4.2 cent price that Tricom S.A. (and other 
Dominican carriers) charges for local termination of 
international calls in an upcoming regulatory proceeding, rather 
than in the context of AACR's individual dispute with Tricom 
S.A., also weighs against an exercise of jurisdiction here.  
INDOTEL chose this regulatory approach based on its concern that 
any change in call termination rates ought to apply to all 
carriers in the Dominican market, so as to avoid potential price 
discrimination and market distortions.  We believe that INDOTEL's 
desire to avoid a piecemeal approach to these rate issues is 
entitled to deference.  Accordingly, while we cannot predict the 
results of INDOTEL's upcoming regulatory proceedings - and thus 
express no view on any actions INDOTEL may take - we  believe 
that considerations of international comity counsel in favor of 
our declining to address the merits of AACR's position on 
international call termination rates while INDOTEL is in the 
process of reviewing these very same issues in the context of a 
broader regulatory proceeding. 

For the reasons stated above, even though the findings and 
conclusions of INDOTEL may be different than those we might have 
reached, we conclude that the Complaint filed in this matter 
should be dismissed on grounds of international comity.97  
INDOTEL has either already addressed, or plans soon to address, 
all of the significant issues raised in this Complaint.  Thus, we 
should not allow complainants to relitigate those issues here. 

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 
201(b), 202(a), and 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 202(a), and 
214, and section 63.14(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  
63.14(a), that the Complaint filed by Centennial Communications 
Corp. and its affiliates against Tricom USA, Inc. IS DISMISSED 
WITH PREJUDICE, and this proceeding is TERMINATED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Complainants' Motion to Strike and for 
Summary Judgment, filed on October 26, 2001, is denied as moot.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                                                  
                         Marlene H. Dortch
                         Secretary
_________________________

1    Formal Complaint,  File No.  EB-01-MD-021 (filed  Sept.  4, 
2001) (``Complaint'').

2    47 U.S.C.  208.

3    47 U.S.C.  63.14(a).

4    47 U.S.C.  201(b), 202(a), 214.

5    Joint Submission,  File  No. EB-01-MD-021  (filed  Nov.  9, 
2001) (``Joint Submission'') at 1,  8.

6    Joint Submission at 1,  4; Supplement to Joint Submission, 
File No.  EB-01-MD-021  (filed  Jan. 11,  2002)  (``Supp.  Joint 
Submission'') at 9,  1.

7    Formal Complaint,  File No.  EB-01-MD-021 (filed  Sept.  4, 
2001) (``Complaint'') at 1,  1.  

8    Complaint at 2-3,   4; Joint Submission at  1,  6;  Supp. 
Joint Submission at 9,  5.  Although the parties stipulate that 
AACR is one of the  complainants in this case (Joint  Submission 
at 1,  5; Supp. Joint Submission  at 9,  2), they disagree  as 
to whether  Centennial  Puerto Rico  is  a party.   Supp.  Joint 
Submission at 11-12,  1.  Because we dismiss the Complaint,  we 
need not resolve this issue.

9    Joint Submission at 1,  6-7; Supp. Joint Submission at  9, 
 2.

10   Joint Submission at 1-2,  9.

11   Joint Submission at 1,  6.

12   Supp. Joint Submission at 9,  5.

13   Supp. Joint Submission at 9,  5.

14   47 U.S.C.  214.

15   Domtel Communications,  Inc. Application  for Authority  to 
Provide  Direct  Service  Between  the  United  States  and  the 
Dominican Republic, Memorandum Opinion, Order, Authorization and 
Certificate, 10 FCC Rcd 12159 (1995) (``Section 214 Order''), at 
 1.   Tricom USA  formerly operated  as Domtel  Communications, 
Inc. (``Domtel'').   Joint  Submission  at  2,    11.   As  the 
successor to Domtel, Tricom USA is  subject to all of the  terms 
and conditions of the Section 214 Order.  Joint Submission at 2, 
 11; Complaint at 3,   5; Defendant Tricom USA, Inc.'s  Answer 
to the Complaint of Centennial Communications Corp.,  Centennial 
Communications Puerto Rico, Inc., and All America Cable & Radio, 
Inc., File No. EB-01-MD-021  (filed Oct. 13, 2001)  (``Answer'') 
at 18,  5.

16   Supp. Joint Submission at 10,  11.

17   Joint Submission  at 2,   13-15.   The parties  stipulate 
that the Commission lacks  jurisdiction over Tricom S.A.   Joint 
Submission at 1,  1.

18   Joint Submission at 2,  14.  Neither Tricom S.A. nor  AACR 
appears on the Commission's list of foreign carriers that do not 
qualify for the presumption that they lack market power.  See 47 
C.F.R.  63.14  (note to  paragraph (a)).  This  list, which  is 
posted at http://www.fcc.gov.ib, identifies Compania  Dominicana 
de  Telefonos  (``Codetel'')  as  a  carrier  in  the  Dominican 
Republic that does not qualify for the presumption, but contains 
no reference to Tricom S.A. or AACR.

19   Complaint at 12,   22.   In describing  the events  giving 
rise  to  this  action,  the  Complaint  frequently  refers   to 
Centennial and its affiliates collectively as ``Centennial'' and 
to Tricom S.A.  simply as ``Tricom.''   See, e.g., Complaint  at 
12-16,  23-34; at 20,  43.  These references are  misleading.  
Our review of the record  establishes that the operative  events 
took place  in  the Dominican  Republic  and involved  AACR  and 
Tricom  S.A.   Accordingly,   in  summarizing  the   Complaint's 
allegations, we  distinguish  between Centennial  and  AACR  and 
between Tricom USA and Tricom  S. A., even though the  Complaint 
often does not.

20   Complaint, Exhibit A (Declaration of Jose A. Rizek (``Rizek 
Decl.'')) at 2-3,  7-8.

21   Complaint at 12,  22.

22   Complaint at 12,  22, 23.

23   Complaint at 12,  23.

24   Complaint at 12,  23.

25   Complaint, Exhibit A (Rizek Decl.) at 7,  14-15.

26   Complaint at 13-14,  27; Exhibit  A (Rizek Decl.) at 7,   
18.

27   Complaint at 13-14,  27; Exhibit A (Rizek Decl.) at 7,   
18-19.

28   Complaint at 12-13,  24; Exhibit A (Rizek  Decl.) at  6-7, 
 17-18.

29   Complaint at 13,  25.

30   Complaint at 14,   28; Exhibit A (Rizek  Decl.) at 8-9,   
22.

31   Complaint at 14,  29; Exhibit  A (Rizek Decl.) at 4,   9; 
at 8-9,  22.  The charges referenced here, and throughout  this 
opinion and order, are in U.S. dollar equivalents.

32   Complaint at 14,  30.

33   Complaint at 15,   31; Exhibit A (Rizek  Decl.) at 10,   
25-26.

34   Complaint at 15,  31; Exhibit A (Rizek Decl.) at 10,  25.  
Accordingly, the  INDOTEL  proceeding,  which  is  discussed  in 
detail below, was pending at the time Complainants commenced the 
instant action on September 4, 2001. 

35   Complaint at 7-8,  14-15; at 23-24,  49-50.  

36   Complaint at 16-18,  35-39.

37   Complaint  at  8,    15;  at  24-25,    52;    Centennial 
Communications Corp.'s Reply to  Affirmative Defenses, File  No. 
EB-01-MD-021  (filed  Oct.  23,  2001)  (``Reply'')  at   15-17.  
According to the  Complaint, the  1.1. cent charge  is the  rate 
that all carriers  in the  Dominican Republic  charge for  local 
termination of domestic traffic.  Complaint at 14,  29; Exhibit 
A (Rizek  Decl.) at  8-9,   22;  at 15,   39.   The  Complaint 
maintains  that  because  local  termination  of   international 
traffic uses the same resources  and involves the same costs  as 
local termination of  domestic traffic, Tricom  S.A.'s 4.2  cent 
international access charge  is excessive.  Complaint  at 14,   
29.

38   Complaint at 8,   15;  at 24-25,   52;  Exhibit A  (Rizek 
Decl.) at 16,  42; Reply at 15-17.  The Complaint concedes that 
complainants do not know what Tricom S.A. charges Tricom USA for 
local termination of international calls.  Complaint, Exhibit  B 
(Declaration of Lee L. Selwyn) at 23,  27. 

39   Complaint at 7-9,  14-16; at 22-31,  48-67.

40   Complaint at 32,  69.

41   Tricom  USA,  Inc.'s  Brief  in  Response  to  the  Federal 
Communications Commission's November 5, 2001 Letter Ruling, File 
No.  EB-01-MD-021  (filed  Nov.  28,  2001)  (``Tricom   Opening 
Brief''), Exhibit 3 (English Translation of Article 76.2 of  the 
Dominican Republic General  Telecommunications Law 153-98  (``DR 
Law 153'')).  The  parties have  stipulated to  the accuracy  of 
this translation.  Supp. Joint  Submission at 4.  All  citations 
to DR Law 153 in this order are to the English translation.

42   Tricom Opening  Brief,  Exhibit  3 (DR  Law  153),  Article 
77(b).

43   See, e.g., Tricom  Opening Brief, Exhibit  3 (DR Law  153), 
Articles 77 (c), 78(a), 78(o).

44   Tricom Opening  Brief,  Exhibit  3 (DR  Law  153),  Article 
78(d).  

45   Tricom Opening  Brief,  Exhibit  3 (DR  Law  153),  Article 
78(g). 

46   Tricom Opening Brief, Exhibit 3 (DR Law 153), Article 56.

47   Tricom Opening Brief, Exhibit 3 (DR Law 153), Article 56.  

48   Answer, Exhibit 7 (INDOTEL Petition) at 3-7,  1.8-1.19.

49   Answer,  Exhibit  7  (INDOTEL  Petition)  at  3-4,     1.9 
(alleging that Tricom  S.A. had  shown a ``lack  of interest  in 
formalizing .  . .  [an interconnection]  [a]greement''  because 
such an agreement involved  ``increasing the market  competition 
capacity of [AACR]'').  See Answer, Exhibit 7 (INDOTEL Petition) 
at 4,   1.11  (alleging  that Tricom  S.A. had  ``refus[ed]  to 
expand the traffic originating and terminating capacity  between 
both  networks,  which  prevented  [AACR]  from  fulfilling  its 
international  correspondent  undertakings,  and  offering   its 
services to customers owning a TRICOM line'').

50   Answer, Exhibit 7 (INDOTEL Petition) at 7,  1.19  (``calls 
originating in our  network and intended  for TRICOM were  being 
blocked by limitations  on the capacity  attributable solely  to 
TRICOM'').  See Answer, Exhibit 7 (INDOTEL Petition) at 8, 2.1 
(AACR was forced to ``request from international companies  with 
whom  [it]  hold[s]  correspondent  relations  to  abstain  from 
sending [AACR] calls intended for  TRICOM network [sic], due  to 
the inability to complete them . . .'').  

51   Answer, Exhibit 7 (INDOTEL Petition)  at 18,  2.3;   Supp. 
Joint Submission  at  2,   7  (stipulating  that  .68  centavos 
Dominicanos is equal to 4.2 cents in U.S. currency).  See  Supp. 
Joint Submission at 6,  9.

52   Answer, Exhibit 7 (INDOTEL Petition) at 18,  2.3.

53   Answer, Exhibit 7 (INDOTEL Petition) at 16-17,  2.2;   See 
Supp. Joint Submission at 6,  9.

54   Supp. Joint Submission at 5,  4.

55   Answer, Exhibit 7 (INDOTEL Petition) at 26.

56   Answer, Exhibit 7 (INDOTEL Petition) at 26.

57   Answer, Exhibit 7 (INDOTEL Petition) at 26.  See id. at  8, 
 2.1.

58   Answer, Exhibit 7 (INDOTEL Petition) at 26. 

59   Supp. Joint Submission  at 6,   6;  Complaint, Exhibit  20 
(INDOTEL Resolution No. 043-01  (``Resolution No. 043-01''))  at 
1.  The parties have  stipulated to the  accuracy of an  English 
translation of Complaint Exhibit 20,  which was attached to  the 
Letter from  Karlyn D.  Stanley,  counsel for  complainants,  to 
Judith O'Neill,  counsel for  defendant, File  No.  EB-01-MD-021 
(filed Sept. 18, 2001); Supp. Joint Submission at 4,  III.  All 
citations to  Resolution No.  043-01 in  this Order  are to  the 
English translation. 

60   Supp. Joint Submission at 6,  6.

61   Supp. Joint Submission at 6,  7.

62   Supp. Joint Submission at 6,  7-8. 

63   Complaint,  Exhibit  24  (INDOTEL  Resolution  No.   053-01 
(``Resolution No. 053-01'')); Supp. Joint Submission at 6,   9.  
The parties  have  stipulated  to the  accuracy  of  an  English 
translation of Exhibit 24, which was attached to the Letter from 
Christopher W. Savage, counsel  for complainants, to Lisa  Saks, 
Market Disputes  Resolution Division,  Enforcement Bureau,  File 
No. EB-01-MD-021 (dated Feb.  26, 2002); Supp. Joint  Submission 
at 4,   III.  All citations  to Resolution No.  053-01 in  this 
Order are to the English translation.  

64   Complaint, Exhibit 24 (Resolution No. 053-01) at 27.

65   Supp. Joint Submission at 6,   9.  See Complaint,  Exhibit 
24 (Resolution No. 053-01) at 24-26.

66   Complaint, Exhibit 24 (Resolution No. 053-01) at 25.

67   Complaint, Exhibit 24 (Resolution No. 053-01) at 35;  Supp. 
Joint Submission at 6,  9.

68   Complaint, Exhibit 24  (Resolution No. 053-01)  at 29;  see 
id. at 26, 32-33, 37.

69   Supp. Joint Submission  at 6,   10.  Shortly after  filing 
the petition for reconsideration, complainants filed the instant 
Complaint on September 4, 2001.

70   Supp. Joint Submission  at 6-7,   11.   Answer, Exhibit  1 
(INDOTEL Resolution  No.  056-01 (``Resolution  No.  056-01'')).  
Exhibit 1 to the Answer is an English translation of  Resolution 
No. 056-01, and the parties  have stipulated to the accuracy  of 
the translation.   Supp.  Joint Submission  at  4,   III.   All 
citations to  Resolution No.  056-01 in  this Order  are to  the 
English translation.

71   Answer, Exhibit 1 (Resolution No. 056-01) at 16.

72   Answer, Exhibit 1 (Resolution No. 056-01) at 22.

73   Answer, Exhibit 1 (Resolution No. 056-01) at 11.

74   Answer, Exhibit 1 (Resolution  No. 056-01) at 15.   INDOTEL 
explained that interconnection costs would remain at the  market 
level until such regulatory revisions occurred.  Id.

75   Supp. Joint Submission at 6-7,  11.

76   Supp. Joint Submission at 8,  25.

77   Supp. Joint Submission at 7,  12.

78   Supp. Joint Submission at 7,  13.

79   Supp. Joint Submission  at 7,   14; Tricom Opening  Brief, 
Exhibit 5 (INDOTEL Resolution No. 070-01  (``Resolution No. 070-
01'')) at 13.  Exhibit 5 to Tricom's Opening Brief is an English 
translation of  Resolution  No.  070-01, and  the  parties  have 
stipulated to  the accuracy  of  the translation.   Supp.  Joint 
Submission at 4,  III.  All citations to Resolution No.  070-01 
in this Order are to the English translation.

80   Supp. Joint Submission at 7,  15-16.

81   Supp. Joint Submission at 9,  6, 27.

82   See, e.g., Bigio v.  The Coca Cola Co.,  239 F.3d 440,  454 
(2d Cir. 2001  ) (remanding  a dispute against  a United  States 
defendant over government confiscation  of property in Egypt  to 
district court  for a  determination of  whether to  dismiss  on 
comity grounds.);  In re  Maxwell Communication  Corp., 93  F.3d 
1036, 1047 (2d  Cir.1996) (affirming dismissal  of complaint  by 
debtor in deference to English bankruptcy proceedings).

83   Enforcement of  Other  Nations'  Prohibitions  Against  the 
Uncompleted Call Signaling Configuration of International  Call-
Back Service, FCC 02-28, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2002  WL 
226650 (rel. Feb. 13, 2002) (``Call-Back NPRM'') at 2,  4.  See 
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163-64 (1895). 

84   Hilton v. Guyot,  159 U.S. at  164; Restatement (Third)  of 
the Foreign Relations Law of the United States,  101, comment e 
(1986).

85   Call-Back NPRM, 2002 WL 22650 at 2,  4.

86   Diorinou v. Mezitis, 237 F.3d  133, 138-39 (2d Cir.  2001).  
See e.g., Finanz  AG Zurich  v. Banco Economico  S.A., 192  F.3d 
240, 246?50  (2d Cir.1999)  (affirming dismissal  of  creditor's 
suit against debtor on comity grounds in deference to a  pending 
liquidation proceeding against the  debtor in Brazil);  Allstate 
Life Ins. Co. v. Linter Group  Ltd., 994 F.2d 996, 998-1002  (2d 
Cir.  1993),  cert.  denied,  510  U.S.  945  (1993)  (affirming 
dismissal of securities  action on grounds  of comity and  forum 
non-conveniens in recognition of pending liquidation proceedings 
in Australia).   

87   Diorinou v. Mezitis, 237 F.3d  at 139.  See, e.g.,  Victrix 
Steamship Co.  v.  Salen  Dry  Cargo  A.B.,  825  F.2d  709  (2d 
Cir.1987) (affirming decision not to enforce a British  judgment 
against a  bankrupt debtor  in deference  to pending  bankruptcy 
proceedings in Sweden).  

88   Diorinou v. Mezitis, 237 F.3d at 139-40.  See, e.g., id. at 
142-46 (deferring  to  Greek court's  custody  determination  on 
comity grounds);  Alfadda  v.  Fenn, 966  F.  Supp.  1317,  1326 
(S.D.N.Y 1997),  aff'd on  other grounds,  159 F.3d  41(2d  Cir. 
1998) (recognizing French judgment, as  a matter of comity,  and 
holding that  judgment  had  preclusive  effect  as  to  certain 
claims).

89   Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. at 202-03 (``where there has been 
opportunity for a full and fair  trial abroad before a court  of 
competent  jurisdiction,  conducting  the  trial  upon   regular 
proceedings, . .  . under  a system of  jurisprudence likely  to 
secure an impartial administration of justice . . . and there is 
nothing to show either prejudice in the court, or in the  system 
of laws under which  it was sitting, or  fraud in procuring  the 
judgment, or any  other special  reason why the  comity of  this 
nation should not allow [the  judgment] full effect, the  merits 
of the case should  not . . .  be tried afresh'');  Diorinou  v. 
Mezitis, 237 F.3d  at 142-43 (observing  that ``American  courts 
will  normally   accord   considerable  deference   to   foreign 
adjudications as  a matter  of comity''  and that  applying  the 
doctrine of comity ``often entails consideration of the fairness 
of a foreign adjudicating system'') (citations omitted);  Finanz 
AG Zurich v. Banco Economico  S.A., 192 F.3d  at 246  (``'United 
States courts  ordinarily  refuse  to  review  acts  of  foreign 
governments and  defer to  proceedings taking  place in  foreign 
countries .  .  . so  long  as  `the foreign  court  had  proper 
jurisdiction and enforcement  does not prejudice  the rights  of 
United States citizens  or violate  domestic public  policy.''') 
(citations omitted).

90   See Answer, Exhibit 1 (Resolution No. 056-01) at 16. 

91   Complaint, Exhibit  24 (Resolution  No. 053-01)  at  24-26; 
Answer, Exhibit 1 (Resolution No. 056-01) at 11.

92   Answer,  Exhibit   7   (INDOTEL  Petition);   Supp.   Joint 
Submission at 5,  3, 4.

93   Tricom Opening Brief 12; Answer at 57, 61, 64.

94   See Tricom Opening Brief  at 4-5, 12-13, 24-25;  Centennial 
Communications Corp.'s Supplemental Reply Brief, File No. EB-01-
MD-021 (filed Dec. 19, 2001) at 7-8, 10-14.

95   See Supp. Joint Submission at 6,  7-11.

96   See Supp. Joint Submission at 8,  25.

97   Complainants filed  a  Motion  to Strike  and  for  Summary 
Judgment that sought to strike  portions of the Answer based  on 
Tricom USA's asserted  lack of  candor in  denying knowledge  of 
certain facts alleged in the Complaint, and argued that striking 
that material would  entitle complainants  to summary  judgment.  
Centennial's Motion to Strike and for Summary Judgment, File No. 
EB-01-MD-021 (filed  Oct. 26,  2001).  We  deny this  motion  as 
moot, because our decision  to dismiss this  case on grounds  of 
international comity  does  not  depend  in  any  way  upon  the 
portions of the Answer that are the subject of the motion.