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                )
                                )
AT&T Corporation,               )
                                )
     Complainant,               )
                                )
          v.                    )  File No. E-96-36
                                )
Frontier Communications of Mt. Pulaski, Inc.,     )
Frontier Communications-Schuyler, Inc., )
Frontier Communications-Midland, Inc.,  )
Frontier Telephone of Rochester, Inc., and   )
Global Crossing North America, Inc.,    )
                                )
     Defendants.                   )


                MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

     Adopted:  February 21, 2002             Released:  
February 27, 2002

By the Commission:
                              
     1.        In this Memorandum Opinion and Order 
(``Order''), we deny a formal complaint that AT&T 
Corporation (``AT&T'') filed against Frontier Communications 
of Mt. Pulaski, Inc. (``Frontier-MP''), Frontier 
Communications of Schuyler, Inc. (``Frontier-Schuyler''), 
Frontier Communications-Midland, Inc. (Frontier-Midland''), 
Frontier Telephone of Rochester, Inc. (``Frontier 
Telephone''), and Global Crossing North America, Inc. 
(``Global Crossing'') (collectively, ``Defendants'') 
pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended (``Act'' or ``Communications Act'').1  AT&T 
alleges that access revenue-sharing arrangements between 
Defendants and certain information providers to which 
Defendants terminated traffic constituted unreasonable 
discrimination, in violation of section 202(a) of the Act,2 
and breached Defendants' common carrier duties, in violation 
of section 201(b) of the Act.3 The issues raised in this 
Complaint are identical to those raised and denied in AT&T 
Corp. v. Jefferson Telephone Co.4  Thus, for the reasons 
explained therein, we conclude that AT&T has failed to meet 
its burden of demonstrating that Defendants violated either 
section 202(a) or section 201(b) of the Act,5 and therefore 
deny AT&T's complaint in its entirety.  Moreover, we decline 
to reach three issues that AT&T raised for the first time in 
its briefs, because the tardy raising of these issues 
renders the record insufficient to permit a reasoned 
decision.6

     2.        ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 
sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 202(a), and 208 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 
154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 202(a), and 208, that the above-
captioned complaint filed by AT&T IS DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY, 
and this proceeding is TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE.

     3.        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 
1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 202(a), and 208 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 
201(b), 202(a), and 208, that Frontier's Motion to Dismiss, 
and Frontier's Motion to Dismiss Supplement to Verified 
Complaint are DISMISSED.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION                                                  


                              William F. Caton
                              Acting Secretary
_________________________

1         47 U.S.C.  208.  AT&T Corp. v. Frontier 
Communications of Mt. Pulaski, Inc. et al., Verified 
Complaint, File No. E-96-36 (filed July 15, 1996) 
(``Complaint'').  
2         47 U.S.C.  202(a).  Section 202(a) of the Act 
makes it unlawful ``for any common carrier to make any 
unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, 
. . . facilities, or services for or in connection with like 
communication service . . . or to make or give any undue or 
unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular 
person.''  47 U.S.C.  202(a). 
3         47 U.S.C.  201(b).  Section 201(b) of the Act 
provides, in pertinent part, that ``[a]ll . . . practices . 
. . in connection with such communication service shall be 
just and reasonable, and any such . . . practice . . . that 
is unjust or unreasonable is hereby declared to be 
unlawful.''  47 U.S.C.  201(b).
4         AT&T Corp. v. Jefferson Telephone Co., Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 16130 (2001) (``AT&T v. 
Jefferson'').
5         See generally Hi-Tech Furnace Systems, Inc. v. 
FCC, 224 F.3d 781, 787 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (affirming that the 
complainant in a proceeding conducted under section 208 of 
the Act bears the burden of proof).
6         See, e.g., AT&T  v. Jefferson, 16 FCC Rcd at 16133 
n.18; Consumer.Net v. AT&T Corp., Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 
300,  40 n.93 (1999) (declining to consider an argument 
raised for the first time in the briefs).  Cf., Building 
Owners and Managers Association International v. FCC, 254 
F.3d 89, 100 n.14 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (declining to address an 
issue raised cursorily in the brief).