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                 )
                                )
METROCALL, INC.,                 )
                                )    File Nos. E-98-16, E-98-17
         Complainant,           )
                                )
    v.                          )
                                )
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE      )
COMPANY and PACIFIC BELL         )
TELEPHONE COMPANY,               )
                                )
         Defendants.            )

                    Order On Reconsideration

   Adopted:  March 12, 2002               Released:  March 15, 
2002

By the Commission:

     1.        In this  Order  on Reconsideration,  we  deny  the 
petition  filed  by   Metrocall,  Inc.  (``Metrocall'')   seeking 
reconsideration  of   our  Memorandum   Opinion  and   Order   on 
Supplemental   Complaint   for    Damages.1    Metrocall    seeks 
reconsideration of our finding that it is subject to charges  for 
transiting traffic2  as well  as our  decision to  consider  such 
charges in  determining whether  Metrocall  was entitled  to  any 
refund of  its  payments  to defendants  Pacific  Bell  Telephone 
Company and  Southwestern Bell  Telephone Company  (collectively, 
``the  SBC  defendants'').3   Metrocall  also  demands  that  the 
Commission impose  forfeitures on  the SBC  defendants and  award 
Metrocall  half  of   any  resulting  payments.    Alternatively, 
Metrocall seeks reconsideration  of our rejection  of its  demand 
for punitive damages against the SBC defendants.

     2.        Transiting traffic  is ``traffic  that  originates 
from a carrier other than the interconnecting LEC [Local Exchange 
Carrier] but nonetheless is carried  over the LEC network to  the 
paging carrier's  network.''4  In  the  Liability Order  in  this 
proceeding, we  held that  LECs had  the right  to charge  paging 
carriers for such traffic.5  In the Damages Order, we held  that, 
although  the  SBC  defendants  had  improperly  imposed  certain 
charges on Metrocall, Metrocall was  not entitled to a refund  of 
its  payments  to   the  SBC  defendants   because,  even   under 
Metrocall's billing figures,  it still had  underpaid for  lawful 
charges, including  transiting charges,  on its  interconnection-
related accounts with the SBC  defendants.6  In its Petition  for 
Reconsideration,  Metrocall  claims  that  we  should  not   have 
considered the transiting  traffic charges in  the Damages  Order 
because  we  allegedly  erred  in  our  decision  regarding   the 
lawfulness of those charges in the Liability Order.

     3.        The parties  focus on  whether Metrocall  properly 
disputed the  lawfulness of  transiting traffic  charges in  this 
proceeding, such that  it might  question the  legality of  those 
charges in its supplemental complaint for damages.7  We need  not 
reach this  question,  however,  because  we  have  affirmed  the 
lawfulness of  transiting  traffic  charges since  the  close  of 
briefing  in  this  case.8   In  a  recent  decision,  we  stated 
unequivocally that ``our rules ... allow a LEC to charge a paging 
carrier  for  traffic  that   transits  the  LEC's  network   and 
terminates on the paging carrier's network as long as the traffic 
does not originate on the LEC's network.''9  Metrocall's petition 
for reconsideration on this point is therefore denied.

     4.        Metrocall also  asks  that the  Commission  impose 
forfeitures against the SBC defendants  and award it half of  any 
such payments, in  light of its  efforts ``to force  the LECs  to 
comply with the  Act and the  Commission's rules and  orders.''10  
Alternatively, Metrocall seeks reconsideration of our decision in 
the Damages Order  to deny  it punitive damages  against the  SBC 
defendants.11  

     5.        We  deny  both  of  Metrocall's  demands.   As  an 
initial matter, we note that ``[f]orfeitures are not available as 
a  remedy  to   a  complainant   in  a   section  208   complaint 
proceeding.''12  Thus,  Metrocall's  request  for  some  sort  of 
``bounty'' against the SBC defendants need not be addressed here.  
Finally, Metrocall offers no new facts or arguments in support of 
its demand  that  we  reconsider  our denial  of  its  claim  for 
punitive damages.   We therefore  deny Metrocall's  petition  for 
reconsideration on  this  point for  the  reasons stated  in  the 
Damages Order.13

     6.        Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED, pursuant to  sections 
4(i), 4(j),  and  405  of  the Communications  Act  of  1934,  as 
amended, 47  U.S.C.    154(i), 154(j),  405,  that  Metrocall's 
Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              William F. Caton 
                              Acting Secretary    
_________________________

1         Metrocall,  Inc.   v.  Southwestern   Bell  Tel.   Co., 
Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on  Supplemental  Complaint  for 
Damages, 16 FCC Rcd 18123 (2001) (``Damages Order'').
2         See Petition for Reconsideration, File Nos. E-98-16  et 
al. (Nov.  1, 2001)  at 8.   We made  this finding  in our  order 
determining liability in this proceeding.  See TSR Wireless,  LLC 
v. U S West Communications, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 11166, 11177,  para. 
19  n.70  (2000)  (``Liability  Order''),  petition  for   recon. 
dismissed, 16 FCC Rcd 11462, petition for review denied sub  nom. 
Qwest Corporation  v. FCC,  252 F.3d  462 (D.C.  Cir. 2001).   We 
subsequently rejected Metrocall's demand that we use the  Damages 
Order to reconsider our  finding.  Damages Order,  16 FCC Rcd  at 
18130, para. 21.
3         Petition for Reconsideration at 8.
4         Liability Order, at 11177, para. 19 n.70.
5         Id.
6         Damages Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 18123, para. 1.
7         In its  Supplemental Complaint  for Damages,  Metrocall 
sought review of our earlier determination in the Liability Order 
regarding the lawfulness of  charges for transiting traffic.   We 
denied  Metrocall's   request  because   it  was   ``procedurally 
improper.''  Id., 16 FCC Rcd at 18130, para. 21.  Metrocall could 
not seek such review of the Liability Order at the damages  stage 
of the proceeding.  Id.  Instead, Metrocall ``should have filed a 
petition for reconsideration  with the Commission  or a  petition 
for review with the  federal appellate courts.''  Id.   Metrocall 
challenges this  finding, while  the SBC  defendants support  it.  
See Petition for Reconsideration at 6-10; Opposition to  Petition 
for Reconsideration, File  Nos. E-98-16  et al.  (filed Nov.  13, 
2001) at 2-7.
8         See Texcom, Inc. d/b/a Answer Indiana v. Bell  Atlantic 
Corp., d/b/a Verizon Commun.,  Memorandum Opinion and Order,  FCC 
01-347  (rel.   Nov.  28,   2001)  (``Texcom''),   petition   for 
reconsideration pending.   See  also Mountain  Commun.,  Inc.  v. 
Qwest Commun. Int'l, Inc., Memorandum  Opinion and Order, DA  02-
250, para. 10  (Enf. Bur. rel.  Feb. 4, 2002)  (citing Texcom  in 
rejecting  paging  carrier's  challenge  to  transiting   traffic 
charges); Metrocall, Inc. v. Concord Tel. Co., Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, DA 02-301, paras. 11-12 (Enf. Bur. rel. Feb. 8, 2002).
9         Texcom, FCC 01-347, para. 5.
10   Petition for Reconsideration at 17.
11   Id. at 18.
12   William G. Bowles, Jr. PE.  d/b/a Mid Missouri Mobilfone  v. 
United Tel. Co.  of Missouri,  12 FCC  Rcd 9840,  9855, para.  28 
(Com. Car. Bur. 1997);  see also Jeffrey  Krauss v. MCI  Telecom. 
Corp., 14 FCC  Rcd 2770,  2776, para.  11 (Com.  Car. Bur.  1999) 
(``The  private  remedies  available  through  the  section   208 
complaint process  are  separate  and distinct  from  the  public 
remedies available  through section  503 forfeiture  proceedings.  
Section  208  provides  for  private  remedies  for   individuals 
aggrieved by  carriers, while  section 503  gives the  Commission 
discretion to assess forfeitures.'').
13   See Damages Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 18129-30, para. 20.