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
Metrocall, Inc., )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) File No. EB-01-MD-008
)
Concord Telephone Co., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Adopted: June 6, 2002 Released: June 10, 2002
By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division,
Enforcement Bureau:
1. On April 6, 2001, Metrocall, Inc. (``Metrocall'') filed a
formal complaint against Concord Telephone Co. (``CTC'')
alleging that CTC violated section 201(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.703(b)
of the Commission's rules by: 1) charging Metrocall recurring
fees solely for the use of direct inward dial (``DID'')
numbers; and 2) charging Metrocall fees for DID facilities
used to transport CTC-originated traffic from CTC's network to
Metrocall's network. On February 2, 2002, the Enforcement
Bureau (``Bureau'') released a Memorandum Opinion and Order
(``MO&O), granting in part and denying in part Metrocall's
complaint.1 On March 11, 2002, CTC filed an application for
review of the MO&O. The Bureau then granted several joint
motions for extension of time for Metrocall to file an
opposition to CTC's application for review, and to file a
supplemental complaint for damages.2
2. On May 30, 2002, the parties filed a Joint Motion To Dismiss
With Prejudice, in which they request that the Commission
dismiss with prejudice Metrocall's formal complaint and CTC's
pending application for review because the parties have
reached a full and complete settlement of the dispute at
issue. We are satisfied that dismissing this complaint and
the related application for review will serve the public
interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and
by eliminating the need for further litigation and the
expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and
of this Commission.
3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i),
4(j), 201(b), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), and 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 Metrocall
and CTC's Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice IS GRANTED.
4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is TERMINATED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Radhika V. Karmarkar
Deputy Chief, Market Disputes
Resolution Division
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
1 Metrocall, Inc. v. Concord Telephone Co., Memorandum Opinion
and Order, DA 02-301 (EB Feb. 8, 2002).
2 See e.g., Metrocall, Inc. v. Concord Telephone Co., Order, DA
02-1136 (EB May 14, 2002).