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



Staton Holdings, Inc. d/b/a             )
Staton Wholesale,                  )
                              )
Complainant,                       )
                              )
     v.                       )    
                              )
MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., )    File No. EB-02-TC-F-008
                              )
Defendant                     )
                              )
and                           )
                              )
Sprint Communications Company, L.P.,    )    File No. EB-03-TC-F-
002
                              )
Defendant.                         )


                              ORDER

Adopted:  May 12, 2004                  Released:  May 13, 2004  


By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

       1. In this Order, we  grant in part  a Complaint filed  by 
Staton Holdings,  Inc.,  d/b/a/  Staton  Wholesale  (``Staton'')1 
against MCI WorldCom  Communications, Inc.  (``MCI''),2 but  deny 
Staton's complaint against  Sprint Communications Company,  L.P., 
(``Sprint'').3  The complaints  allege that  Staton acquired  the 
right to use the toll-free vanity number 888-888-8888 (the  ``All 
Eights Number''),4 and that defendants MCI and Sprint transferred 
the rights  to use  this  number from  Staton  to a  third  party 
without Staton's consent,5 in violation of Sections 1, 201(b) and 
251(e)(1) of  the Communications  Act of  1934, as  amended  (the 
``Act''),6  and  several  Commission  orders  dealing  with   the 
assignment of  toll free  numbers.   Staton's prayer  for  relief 
requests that the All Eights Number be re-assigned to Staton.7  

II.    BACKGROUND

       2. Staton is  a  clothing  distributor  based  in  Dallas, 
Texas, with annual revenues  of approximately $130,000,000.8   It 
is incorporated in Texas,  and has been  in business since  1981.  
Staton receives  customer orders  via telephone,  facsimile,  and 
through the Internet.  Staton states that from September 1999  to 
September 2001, it purchased its long distance telecommunications 
services under  the  MCI On-Net  Voice  Agreement and  under  MCI 
Tariff FCC No. 1.9  Staton asserts that it has used the telephone 
number 1-800-888-8888 in its  business continuously since it  was 
obtained in September 1998.  Staton  states that it informed  MCI 
in June 1995 that  it also wanted to  be assigned the All  Eights 
Number under its  right of  first refusal  to reserve  equivalent 
``888'' numbers.10  According to Staton, MCI granted the  request 
and, effective September 25,  1998, Staton had  the right to  use 
the All Eights Number.11

       3. MCI  billed  Staton  for  the  All  Eights  Number  for 
consecutive  time  periods  starting  September  1998  through  a 
billing period ending on November 14, 2000.12  Staton received no 
bill for the period November 15, 2000 through December 14,  2000, 
but was billed  again by  MCI for  the period  December 15,  2000 
through January 14, 2001.13  MCI has no explanation for this  gap 
in billing periods.

       4. According to Staton, it used the All Eights Number as a 
primary facsimile line  for customer orders,  and had the  number 
printed in  its catalogs.14   Staton states  that it  planned  to 
retire the All Eights Number as a facsimile line, and to use  the 
number to  enter the  ``voice portal  market.''15  To  that  end, 
Staton's 2001 catalog no longer listed the All Eights Number as a 
primary  facsimile  line.16   Staton  believed  that  the  easily 
recognizable nature of the All Eights Number would allow its  new 
business plan to succeed, and states that it invested substantial 
time and money in developing this line of business.17

       5. MCI apparently disconnected the All Eights Number  from 
Staton's Corporate Identifier Number on October 27, 2000.18   MCI 
readily admits that this was the  result of an error by a  former 
MCI employee.19  On October 31,  2000, an MCI representative  was 
contacted by FDC Interactive (``Call Interactive''), also an  MCI 
customer, expressing interest in  the All Eights Number.20   Call 
Interactive represented to MCI that  it had tried the All  Eights 
Number, and a recording indicated that it was not in use.21

       6. MCI checked the  status of the  All Eights Number,  and 
learned that MCI was the Responsible Organization (``RespOrg'')22 
for the number.23  MCI's internal database revealed that the  All 
Eights Number was in a hold status.24  According to MCI, a number 
will remain in a  hold status within MCI  for 45 days, before  it 
gets released to the toll-free spare number pool.25  On  November 
2, 2000, MCI apparently  assigned the All  Eights Number to  Call 
Interactive's Corporate Identification Number, while leaving  the 
number in hold status.26  The MCI service representative for Call 
Interactive contacted the MCI service manager for the All  Eights 
Number, but  did  not  receive  a return  call.27   There  is  no 
evidence that  a  second  attempt to  contact  that  MCI  service 
manager was ever made.  

       7. On January  2, 2001,  Call Interactive  reiterated  its 
interest in obtaining the All Eights Number.  By then, the number 
had been in hold status for  more than 45 days.  Accordingly,  on 
January 4, 2001, the number  was assigned to Call  Interactive.28  
These dates are consistent with  MCI's invoices to Staton,  which 
show a  lower volume  of traffic  for the  October/November  2000 
period when the  number was first  disconnected from Staton,  and 
explains the lack of a  November/December 2000 invoice.  It  does 
not explain,  however,  the  later December  2000  /January  2001 
invoice.  According to MCI, it received a Letter of Authorization 
from Call Interactive dated April 11, 2001 to have the All Eights 
Number ported to Sprint.29  On April 18, 2001, Sprint became  the 
RespOrg for the All Eights Number.30

       8. Staton states that  it first became  aware that it  was 
disconnected  from  the  All   Eights  Number  in  June   2001.31  
According to Staton, the disconnection was not discovered earlier 
because the number was relegated by Staton for use as a secondary 
facsimile line, and as such would not have received much traffic.  
Staton contends that it contacted MCI and Sprint in June to  have 
the number restored to Staton.32  At that time, Call  Interactive 
was already using the All Eights Number.

III.   DISCUSSION

       9. Staton  alleges  that   ``Defendants  MCI  and   Sprint 
knowingly and  intentionally  took  the All  Eights  Number  from 
Staton  without   its   consent,''  and   that   such   ``willful 
misconduct'' violated sections  1, 201(b), and  251(e)(1) of  the 
Act, as well  as several Commission  orders concerning toll  free 
number assignments.  Staton asks for the immediate return of  the 
All Eights  Number,  and  states that  upon  a  determination  of 
liability, it  will  seek damages  from  MCI and  Sprint  ``in  a 
separate proceeding under Section 1.722 of the FCC's rules.''33

       A. Procedural Issues

       10.     We begin  by  addressing  two  procedural  issues.  
First, MCI raises as an affirmative defense the requirement under 
Section 415(b) of  the Act that  all complaints against  carriers 
for the recovery of damages  be filed with the Commission  within 
two years from the time  the cause of action accrues.   According 
to MCI,  Staton's complaint  was filed  outside this  statute  of 
limitations.34  We conclude that  Staton's complaint against  MCI 
was filed within two  years of the accrual  of Staton's cause  of 
action.  

     11.  The relevant  dates are  as  follows.  On  October  27, 
2000, MCI  disconnected  the  All Eights  Number  from  Staton.35  
According to Staton, MCI sent invoices for the All Eights  Number 
covering service through  January 14, 2001.36   MCI asserts  that 
the last ``substantial'' invoice for  the All Eights Number  sent 
to Staton was dated November 25, 2000, but does not  specifically 
deny that  it  sent later  invoices.37   The parties  agree  that 
Staton did  not  realize that  the  All Eights  Number  had  been 
disconnected until June 2001.38   Staton's complaint against  MCI 
was filed on December 20, 2002.  

       12.     In  determining  when  Staton's  cause  of  action 
accrued, we apply the  ``discovery-of-injury'' rule.39  That  is, 
Staton's cause of action accrued when it discovered, or with  due 
diligence should have discovered, that  it had been injured.   In 
this case,  the  parties  agree  that  Staton  did  not  actually 
discover the disconnection  of the All  Eights Number until  June 
2001, which would bring the  filing of the Complaint well  within 
the two year statute of  limitations.  MCI, who bears the  burden 
of proof on this  affirmative defense, argues  that there was  no 
legitimate  reason   for  Staton's   failure  to   discover   the 
disconnection earlier.40

     13.  At least as long as  MCI was continuing to bill  Staton 
for service to the All  Eights Number, however, Staton's  failure 
to realize that the All Eights Number was out of service was  not 
unreasonable.  There is no indication in the record that MCI ever 
affirmatively informed Staton that the All Eights Number had been 
disconnected.  Indeed, the  record indicates  that MCI  continued 
sending bills  for service  to that  number until  January  2001, 
which would have  suggested to Staton  that its service  remained 
fully operational.  Because the service  at issue was an  inbound 
service (i.e., customers used  the number to  call in to  Staton, 
Staton did not use it to call out), the disconnection was perhaps 
less immediately apparent than it would have been if an  outbound 
service were disconnected.  Moreover,  the All Eights Number  was 
not Staton's only toll-free service number.  According to Staton, 
it was using the All Eights  Number only as a secondary fax  line 
at the time it was disconnected, and no customers ever  contacted 
Staton to complain  that the  number was not  working.41  As  set 
forth above,  Staton's cause  of action  accrued when  it  should 
have, with due  diligence, discovered that  it had been  injured.  
Accordingly, we find  that Staton's  cause of  action accrued  no 
sooner than  the  date of  MCI's  last invoice,  which  puts  the 
complaint within the two-year limitations period.

     14.  The second  procedural  issue  we  address  concerns  a 
motion filed by MCI.  On October 14, 2003, Staton filed with  the 
Commission  a   letter   reiterating   previous   arguments   and 
introducing new  issues and  facts in  the case.42   MCI filed  a 
Motion to Strike  the Staton  Letter on October  23, 2003  (``MCI 
Motion to Strike'').43  Staton filed an Opposition to the  Motion 
to Strike on October 29, 2003.44  We grant MCI's Motion to Strike 
the Staton Letter.   This letter  was filed in  violation of  the 
Commission's formal complaint rules and procedures because  there 
is no accommodation for such  a filing in the pleading  schedule, 
and no leave to file the letter was requested.45  

     B.MCI's Actions

     15.  MCI and Staton have stated that  ``the key legal  issue 
in this Action is whether MCI's  actions with respect to the  All 
Eights Number were negligent or  can be characterized as  willful 
misconduct.''46   As  explained  below,  we  find  that  MCI  was 
negligent,  but  that   Staton  has  failed   to  prove   willful 
misconduct.

     16.  On  the  issue  of  negligence,  MCI  admits  that   it 
disconnected the All Eights Number from Staton, but asserts  that 
this action was ``an  error.''47  MCI seems  to concede that  its 
actions were negligent, focusing its  defense in the case on  the 
issue of  willful  misconduct.   In  any  event,  MCI  offers  no 
explanation as to how the  alleged error occurred, and offers  no 
basis to  rebut the  assertion  that its  actions were  at  least 
negligent.  Accordingly, we  find that MCI  acted negligently  in 
disconnecting the All Eights Number.

       17.     On the issue of willful misconduct, Staton asserts 
that willful misconduct means the ``intentional performance of an 
act with knowledge that the performance of that act will probably 
result in injury or damage, or . . . the intentional omission  of 
some act, with knowledge that such omission will probably  result 
in damage or injury . .  . .48  Staton does not provide  evidence 
to counter  MCI's assertion  that its  disconnection of  the  All 
Eights Number was merely an error, and provides no evidence  that 
MCI acted intentionally.  Accordingly, Staton has failed to prove 
willful misconduct.

       18.     Staton  alleges  that  MCI  violated  sections  1, 
201(b), and 251(e)(2) of the  Communications Act by its  actions.  
Section 201(b) of the Act requires that all ``charges, practices, 
classifications, and regulations for and in connection with  such 
communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such 
charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or 
unreasonable  is  .  .  .  unlawful.''49   We  agree  that  MCI's 
negligent disconnection of the  All Eights Number constituted  an 
unjust and unreasonable  practice within the  meaning of  section 
201(b), and therefore find that MCI has violated section  201(b).  
As to sections 1 and  251(e)(2), however, we conclude that  these 
sections impose no duty on MCI that has been violated.       

       19.     Staton contends that MCI violated Section 1 of the 
Act, which sets forth the mission of the FCC to ``make available, 
so far  as possible,  to all  the people  of the  United  States, 
without discrimination . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and 
world-wide wire  and radio  communication service  with  adequate 
facilities at reasonable  charges .  . .  .''50  Staton  contends 
that MCI  violated this  Section  because it  did not  provide  a 
vanity service access code on an equitable basis.51  Section 1 of 
the Act, however, does not establish any requirements for  common 
carriers, and does not create  a cause of action between  private 
parties.  Accordingly, we find that  MCI did not violate  Section 
1.

       20.     Staton also contends that by failing to provide  a 
vanity code on an equitable basis, MCI violated Section 251(e)(1) 
of the Act.    Section 251(e)(1) of the Act confers  jurisdiction 
on the FCC over certain numbering matters:  

     The  Commission  shall  create  or  designate  one  of  more 
     impartial   entities   to   administer    telecommunications 
     numbering and to make such numbers available on an equitable 
     basis.  The  Commission  shall have  exclusive  jurisdiction 
     over those  portions of  the North  American Numbering  Plan 
     that  pertain  to  the  United  States.   Nothing  in   this 
     paragraph shall preclude the  Commission from delegating  to 
     State commissions or  other entities all  or any portion  of 
     such jurisdiction.

Staton, while acknowledging that ``[Section] 251(e)(1) of the Act 
do[es]  not   expressly   impose   specific   requirements   upon 
carriers,''52 nevertheless contends that  this section creates  a 
requirement  ``that  carriers  ensure  all  [vanity  codes]   are 
provided on an  equitable basis.''53  Staton  does not,  however, 
cite any Commission rule, order, or other authority demonstrating 
that  the  Commission  has   imposed  such  toll-free   numbering 
responsibilities upon carriers  or ``responsible  organizations'' 
such as MCI or Sprint.  This, coupled with Staton's own admission 
that Section  251(e)(1) does  not expressly  impose  requirements 
upon carriers, leads us to reject its Section 251(e)(1) argument.  
Accordingly,  we   conclude  that   Staton's  Section   251(e)(1) 
allegations fail.

       21.     Staton also  alleges that  MCI violated  ``various 
FCC Rulings,''54  citing  generally to  a  number of  orders  and 
letters relating to  the administration of  toll free  numbers.55  
Staton does not describe,  however, what specific obligations  it 
believes that  MCI  has violated.   Without  more, we  find  that 
Staton has failed to prove any such violations.

       C. Sprint's Actions

       22.     Staton  asserts  that  Sprint  also  violated  the 
Communications Act and ``various FCC Rulings.''  Staton  asserts, 
without any  evidence  to  support  the  assertion,  that  Sprint 
intentionally induced  MCI  to  disconnect Staton  from  the  All 
Eights Number.56 Sprint  denies these  allegations, stating  that 
the transfer of  the All  Eights Number  from Staton  was a  fait 
accompli before Sprint ever became the RespOrg for the number.57

       23.     Staton bears  the burden  of proof  in this  case.  
The record demonstrates that Staton was already disconnected from 
the All Eights Number before Call Interactive requested that  the 
number be ported to Sprint  from MCI.  Staton offers no  evidence 
whatsoever that  Sprint  did  anything improper  or  that  Sprint 
induced MCI  to disconnect  Staton from  the All  Eights  Number.  
Accordingly, we find that Staton has failed to prove that  Sprint 
engaged in any misconduct in violation of the Communications Act.  
We therefore deny Staton's claims against Sprint.

       D. Remedies

       A.a.    Damages

     24.  The Bankruptcy Court order that permitted this case  to 
go forward  states that  if MCI  is found  liable, ``all  further 
proceedings regarding  determination and  liquidation of  damages 
shall take place in the Bankruptcy Court'' except that ``[i]n the 
event that the FCC determines that [MCI is] liable for negligent, 
and not willful, reassignment of the All Eights Number, then  the 
parties hereby agree that Staton's  claim for damages only  shall 
be liquidated at  the tariff cap  amount of $1000,  and shall  be 
allowed in  that amount  and  not subject  to further  appeal  by 
either party.''58  Similarly, Staton and MCI have agreed in  this 
case that in the event that  MCI is found liable for  negligence, 
but not  willful misconduct,  ``Staton's claim  for damages  only 
shall be liquidated at the tariff cap amount of $1,000, and shall 
be allowed in that  amount and not subject  to further appeal  by 
any party.''59  Accordingly, we award damages from MCI to  Staton 
in the amount of $1000.  

       A.b.    Equitable relief

     25.  Staton asks that the Commission order the current  user 
of the All Eights Number to  surrender its rights to Sprint,  and 
order Sprint to assign the All Eights Number to Staton. 60    The 
relief that  Staton seeks  obviously  cannot be  granted  without 
causing harm to the  current user of the  All Eights Number.   In 
the judicial  context,  it  is an  ``age-old  principle  that  in 
formulating equitable relief a court must consider the effects of 
the relief  on  innocent third  parties.''61   In light  of  this 
general equitable principle,  we find  that we  must balance  the 
equities of granting the relief  requested by Staton against  the 
harm to a third party if that relief is granted.  

     26.  The All Eights Number is  currently being used by  Call 
Interactive.  There is no evidence in this record to suggest that 
Call Interactive  is anything  other than  a completely  innocent 
third party.  The record indicates  that on April 10, 2001,  Call 
Interactive authorized Sprint to become  the RespOrg for the  All 
Eights Number,  that  Sprint began  carrying  Call  Interactive's 
traffic on April  16, 2001,  and that  the number  is active  and 
being used to generate traffic.62   Staton has provided no  other 
evidence of the importance,  or lack thereof,  of the All  Eights 
Number to Call Interactive.

     27.  Turning to Staton,  there is no  doubt that Staton  has 
suffered some harm  as a  result of the  loss of  the All  Eights 
Number caused by  MCI's negligent disconnection  of service.   At 
the same time, however,  we consider a  number of facts  weighing 
against return of the number  to Staton.  First, Staton  presents 
almost nothing by which  we can quantify the  extent of the  harm 
from loss of the number.  At  the time that MCI disconnected  the 
number, Staton  was using  it  only as  a secondary  fax  line.63  
Staton asserts that  it had  plans to launch  a ``voice  portal'' 
service using the  number, but it  had not yet  done so.   Staton 
asserts generally  that  monetary  damages  would  be  inadequate 
compensation for loss of the  All Eights Number, and states  that 
its proposed voice  portal service would  obtain a  ``competitive 
edge provided with the  ease of memory and  the unique nature  of 
the toll-free  All Eights  Number.''64   Because of  the  extreme 
sparseness of the record, however, we have no real evidence  that 
Staton could  not  simply launch  its  voice portal  system  with 
another toll free number, such as the 1-800-888-8888 number  that 
it currently has assigned to it.  Thus, the extent of the harm to 
Staton is speculative.

     28.  Moreover, Staton did  not act promptly  to protect  its 
rights.  Even  after discovering  the  disconnection of  the  All 
Eights  Number,  Staton  waited  18  months  before  filing  this 
complaint  with   the  Commission.    During  that   time,   Call 
Interactive continued to use the number.   

     29.  Considering all  of these  factors,  we find  that  the 
balancing of equities  here weighs  in favor of  leaving the  All 
Eights Number  with Call  Interactive.  Staton,  which bears  the 
burden of  proof as  Complainant, has  not persuaded  us that  it 
would be more equitable to take the number from Call  Interactive 
and give it  to Staton, than  to leave things  as they  currently 
stand.  Accordingly,  we deny  the equitable  relief that  Staton 
requests.

IV.    ORDERING CLAUSES

       30.     Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED, pursuant to  Sections 
4(i), 4(j), 201(b) and 208 of  the Communications Act of 1934  as 
amended, 47  U.S.C.    154(i), 154(j),  201(b),  208,  and  the 
authority  delegated  in   sections  0.111  and   0.311  of   the 
Commission's rules, 47  C.F.R.  0.111,  0.311, that the  above-
captioned Complaint  of  Staton Holdings,  Inc.,  against  Sprint 
Communications Company, L.P. is DENIED, and that the Complaint of 
Staton Holdings, Inc. against  MCI WorldCom Communications,  Inc. 
is granted to the extent set forth herein.

     31.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and 
209 of the Communications Act of  1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.   
151, 154(i),  and 209,  that  MCI WorldCom  Communications,  Inc. 
shall pay Staton  Holdings, Inc.,  within 60 days  of release  of 
this Order, damages in the amount of $1,000.

       32.     IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCI's Motion to  Strike 
the October 14, 2003  letter filed by  Staton Holdings, Inc.,  IS 
GRANTED.



                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

       



                              David H. Solomon         
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau



_________________________

1   Although Staton filed its complaints (``Staton Complaints'') 
in one pleading, the staff assigned different file numbers for 
each individual defendant.  Therefore, the Staton Complaints 
referred to throughout this order are identical in all respects.  
Staton initially included Mills Fleet Farm, Inc. and First Data 
Voice Service as defendants, but they were dismissed from the 
case on June 30, 2003 because they are not common carriers, and 
thus the complaints against them did not state a cause of action 
under section 208.  Staton Holding, Inc. v. Mills Fleet Farm, 
Inc. et al., Order, DA 03-2101 (Enforcement Bureau rel. June 30, 
2003)
2  See Staton v. MCI, File No. EB-02-TC-F-008 (filed December 20, 
2002).  The complaint against MCI was automatically stayed 
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 362(a) because of MCI's pending 
bankruptcy proceeding.  See 11 U.S.C.  362(a).  On April 22, 
2003, Staton filed a Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay to 
Pursue Administrative Relief (``Staton Motion for Relief'').  See 
WorldCom Inc., Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay to Pursue 
Administrative Relief, Case No. 02-4223-AJG, United States 
Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, April 22, 2003.  
Upon stipulation, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the 
Southern District of New York entered on July 15, 2003 a 
Stipulation and Order Resolving Motion of Staton Holdings, Inc. 
for Relief from Automatic Stay to Pursue Administrative Relief 
(``Bankruptcy Stipulation and Order'').  See WorldCom, Inc., 
Stipulation and Order Resolving Motion of Staton Holdings, Inc. 
for Relief from Automatic Stay to Pursue Administrative Relief, 
Chapter 11 Case No. 02-13533-AJG, United States Bankruptcy Court, 
Southern District of New York, July 15, 2003.  The Bankruptcy 
Stipulation and Order granted Staton's Motion for Relief, and 
ordered that the automatic stay be modified to permit Staton and 
MCI to continue and conclude this FCC proceeding ``solely with 
respect to a determination of liability and adjudication of 
claims for injunctive relief with respect to the disconnection 
and reassignment of the All Eights Number.''  With the automatic 
stay modified, MCI filed the Answer of MCI WorldCom 
Communications, Inc., on September 22, 2003 (``MCI Answer'').  
See Staton v. MCI, File No. EB-02-TC-F-008, Answer of MCI 
WorldCom Communications, Inc., filed by MCI on September 22, 
2003.
3  See Staton v. Sprint, File No. EB-03-TC-F-002 (filed  December 
20, 2002).  Sprint filed an Answer to Staton's Complaint on March 
14, 2003 (``Sprint Answer'').  See Staton v. Sprint, File No. EB-
03-TC-F-002, Answer, filed by Sprint on March 14, 2003.  
4  Staton Complaints at 8.
5  Id. at S-1, 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
6  47 U.S.C.  151, 201(b), 251(e)(1).
7  Staton Complaints at 18, 19.
8  Id. at 5, 6.
9  Id. at 6, 7.
10  Section 251(e)(1) of the Act grants the Commission the 
jurisdiction to administer telecommunications numbering, and was 
used as the basis for creating the limited exception to the 
first-come, first-served policy by permitting a right of first 
refusal for the 888 set-aside numbers.  See Toll Free Service 
Access Codes, Fourth Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 13 FCC Rcd 9058 (1998).
11  Staton Complaints at 9.
12  Id.
13  Id.
14  Id. at 9, 10; see also Staton Complaints, Exhibit H.
15  Staton Complaints at 11.  The voice portal market, as  Staton 
describes it,  offers  consumers  access to  a  wide  variety  of 
information by calling a toll-free number.
16  Id. at 12.
17  Id. at 12-13.
18  See MCI Answer at 3, 5, 11, 13, 16.
19  Id. at 3, 5, 11, 16, 18
20  Id. at 16; see also MCI Answer, Exhibit 2.
21  MCI Answer at 16.
22 A ``responsible organization'' or ``RespOrg'' is defined as 
the ``entity chosen by a toll free subscriber to manage and 
administer the appropriate records in the toll free Service 
Management System for the toll free subscriber.''  47 CFR  
52.101(b).
23  MCI Answer at 16.
24  Id. at 16, 17; see also MCI Answer, Exhibit 2.
25  MCI Answer at 17; see also MCI Answer, Exhibit 2.
26  MCI Answer at 17.
27  Id.; see also MCI Answer, Exhibit 2.  MCI does not state when 
this call was placed, but the record indicates that, at the  very 
least, it was prior to when Call Interactive was assigned the All 
Eights Number.  Id.   Further, although MCI  does not  explicitly 
state why the call  was placed, it is  reasonable to assume  from 
the language in  MCI's Answer  that it  was placed  to check  the 
status of the All Eights Number.
28  MCI Answer at 18; see also MCI Answer, Exhibit 2.
29  See MCI Answer, Exhibit 1.
30  MCI Answer at 18.
31  Staton Complaints at 12.
32  Id. at  12; see also  Staton Complaints, Ex.  L.  Exhibit  L, 
while described by Staton as a  transcript, is a series of  notes 
allegedly taken by Staton's counsel denoting the dates and  times 
that calls were placed,  along with a  purported summary of  each 
conversation.
33   Staton Complaints at 17.
34  47 U.S.C.  415(b).  The  facts set forth in MCI's Answer  on 
this issue  appear  to  relate to  an  entirely  different  case, 
inasmuch as  they refer  to complainants  not present  here,  and 
dates that are plainly unrelated to this case.  See Answer at 15, 
para. 33.
35   See  Joint Statement  of Complainant  and Defendants,  filed 
October 1, 2003 at 6, para. 1 (``Joint Statement'').
36   Id. at 5, para. 5.
37   Id. at 8, para. 14.
38   Id. at 6, para. 9, and 7, para. 12.
39   See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 59 F.3d 1407 (1995) 
(holding that  ``discovery-of-injury'' rule, rather than  ``time-
of-injury''  rule,  applied  in  section  208  complaint   case); 
Communications Vending Corp. of Arizona, Inc. v. FCC, __ F.3d __, 
2004 WL 911769 (D.C. Cir. April 30, 2004).
40   MCI Answer at 20.
41   Joint Statement at 4, para. 2.
42  Letter from Walter  Staton, Executive Vice President,  Staton 
Wholesale to Lynn  Vermillera and  David Hunt,  FCC, October  14, 
2003 (``Staton Letter'').
43  See Motion  of MCI  WorldCom Communications,  Inc to  Strike, 
filed October 23, 2003.
44  See Staton's  Opposition to Motion  to Strike, filed  October 
29, 2003.
45 See  generally  47 C.F.R.    1.720-1.736.  Even  if  we  had 
considered the letter, it does not add additional facts or issues 
that would change  the outcome  of this  proceeding.  The  letter 
focuses  mainly  on  Staton's  speculation  regarding   potential 
motives MCI may have had to intentionally disconnect Staton  from 
the All Eights  Number.  Staton  does not,  however, support  its 
speculative theories with record evidence.
46   Joint Statement at 9.
47   See MCI Answer at 3, 5, 11, 13, 16.
48   Staton Complaints  at note 37  (citing Gerri Murphy  Realty, 
Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 16 FCC Rcd 19134 (2001)).
49  47 U.S.C.  201(b).
50  47 U.S.C.  151.
51  Staton Complaints at 14.
52  See Reply to Answer filed by Staton, March 26, 2003, at 8.
53  Staton Complaints at 14.
54  Staton Complaints at 4.
55  See Toll Free Service Access Codes, Report and Order, 11  FCC 
Rcd 2496 (1996);  Toll Free Service  Access Codes, Second  Report 
and Order and Further Notice  of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC  Rcd 
11162 (1997); Toll Free Service  Access Codes, Fourth Report  and 
Order and Memorandum Opinion and  Order, 13 FCC Rcd 9058  (1998); 
Letter from Geraldine A. Matise,  FCC, to Michael Wade,  Database 
Service Management, Inc. (April  2, 1998); Letter from  Geraldine 
A. Matise,  FCC, to  Michael Wade,  Database Service  Management, 
Inc. (May 15, 1998).
56   Staton Complaints at 16.
57   Sprint Answer at 13-16.
58   Bankruptcy Stipulation and Order at para 5.
59   Joint Statement at 8-9.
60   Staton Complaints at 18.
61  In re  Envirodyne Indus., 29  F.3d 301, 303  (7th Cir.  1994) 
(citing International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United  States, 
431 U.S. 324 (1977)).
62   Joint Statement at 3, paras. 7-8.
63   Staton Complaints at 12.
64   Staton Complaints at 11.