Click here for Microsoft Word Version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
TSR WIRELESS, LLC, et al., )
) File Nos. E-98-13, E-98-17,
Complainants, ) E-98-18
)
v. )
)
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. )
et al., )
)
Defendants.
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted: May 18, 2001 Released: May 22, 2001
By the Commission:
In this Order on Reconsideration, we deny the Petition for
Reconsideration or Clarification of our Memorandum Opinion and
Order in this proceeding,1 filed by Small Business In
Telecommunications (``SBT''). SBT, which describes itself as
representing ``hundreds of paging companies, two-way shops, radio
dealers, SMR operators, community repeater operators'' and other
entities,2 challenges our finding in the Order that CMRS
carriers, including paging carriers, must pay Local Exchange
Carriers (``LECs'') for ``transiting'' traffic, that is, traffic
originating from a carrier other than the interconnecting LEC and
carried over the LEC's network to the CMRS carrier's network.3
SBT was not a party to the underlying proceeding.4 As a non-
party, therefore, to seek reconsideration of the Order SBT must
``state with particularity the manner in which ... [its]
interests are adversely affected by the action taken, and ...
show good reason why it was not possible ... to participate in
the earlier stages of the proceeding.''5 SBT falls far short of
this standard. Rather than stating ``with particularity how its
interests are adversely affected'' by the Order, SBT merely
describes its membership. Moreover, SBT simply does not address
our requirement that non-parties explain why they could not
participate in the proceeding at an earlier stage. In light of
SBT's noncompliance with our rule, we dismiss SBT's petition.
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 SBT's Petition for Reconsideration or
Clarification IS DISMISSED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Magalie Roman Salas
Secretary
_________________________
1 TSR Wireless, LLC et al. v. U S West Communications, Inc.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11166 (2000)
(``Order''), petition for review docketed sub. nom. Qwest Corp.
v. FCC, Nos. 00-1376 et al. (D.C. Cir. 2001). The appeal raises
different issues than presented in SBT's Petition for
Reconsideration or Clarification.
2 SBT Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification, TSR
Wireless, LLC, et al. v. U S West Communications, Inc., et al.,
File Nos. E-98-13 et al., at 1 (filed July 21, 2000)
(``Petition'').
3 Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11177, ¶ 19 n.70.
4 None of the parties to the consolidated cases in this
proceeding has petitioned for reconsideration of the Order.
Complainants, TSR Wireless, LLC and Metrocall, Inc., did not
participate in the proceeding upon reconsideration. Defendants,
Pacific Bell Telephone Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
(now merged into SBC Telecommunications, Inc. (``SBC'')), U S
West Communications, Inc. (now known as Qwest Communications
International, Inc.), and GTE Telephone Operations (now known as
Verizon), opposed SBT's petition.
5 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b).