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
APCC Services, Inc., )
Data Net Systems, LLC )
Davel Communications, Inc. )
Jaroth, Inc. dba Pacific Telemanagement )
Services, and )
Intera Communications Corp., )
)
Complainants, )
)
)
v. ) File No. EB-02-MD-008
)
Bee Line Long Distance, Inc., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Adopted: October 2, 2002 Released:
October 3, 2002
By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division,
Enforcement Bureau:
1. On April 19, 2002, APCC Services, Inc., et
al. (``APCC'' or ``Complainants''), filed with
this Commission a formal complaint against Bee
Line Long Distance, Inc. (``Bee Line'') pursuant
to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended (the ``Act'').1 The complaint alleges
that Bee Line failed to pay dial-around
compensation to Complainants for certain
categories of completed coinless calls originating
from payphones, in violation of Commission rules
and orders.2 Due to a series of extensions, the
Defendant was required to file an answer in this
proceeding no later than August 30, 2002.3
2. In a letter to Commission staff dated August
30, 2002, the parties indicated that they had
reached a settlement in this matter, and were
``currently circulating a settlement agreement for
execution by all of the parties.''4 The parties
further indicated that they anticipated that the
settlement would be finalized by September 13,
2000. Accordingly, to avoid running afoul of the
Commission's formal complaint procedures, the
parties jointly requested a short additional
extension of time for the Defendant to file an
answer to the complaint, with the understanding
that an answer would not be required if the
settlement is completed prior to the revised due
date. In a Letter Ruling from Commission staff
dated September 3, 2002, the Defendant was granted
the requested extension of time to file its
answer, to September 13, 2002, the date suggested
by the parties.5
3. On September 17, 2002, Complainants filed a
motion requesting that we dismiss the formal
complaint in this proceeding with prejudice.6
Specifically, Complainants assert that ``the
parties have reached a settlement in this
matter,'' as was anticipated.
4. We grant Complainant's motion to dismiss the
complaint, with prejudice. We find that dismissal
at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the
public interest by eliminating the expenditure of
further time and resources of the Commission.
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to
sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
§§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections
64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated
by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311,
1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Radhika V. Karmarkar
Deputy Chief, Market Disputes
Resolution Division
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
1 47 U.S.C. § 208.
2 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320. These rules
were promulgated to implement section 276 of the Act, 47
U.S.C. § 276.
3 See APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Bee Line Long
Distance, Letter from Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market
Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, File
No. EB-02-MD-008 (August 13, 2002).
4 See APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Bee Line Long
Distance, Letter from Alan Hubbard, Attorney for
Complainants, and Stanley K. Stoll, Attorney for Bee Line,
to Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution
Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, File No. EB-02-MD-008
(August 30, 2002)
5 See APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Bee Line Long
Distance, Letter from Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market
Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, File
No. EB-02-MD-008 (September 3, 2002).
6 APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Bee Line Long
Distance, Notice of Settlement and Motion to Dismiss Formal
Complaint With Prejudice, FCC, File No. EB-02-MD-008 (filed
September 17, 2002).