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-014
)
Vertex Group d/b/a Premiere Telemedia, Inc., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Adopted: November 21, 2002 Released: November
22, 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 Vertex
Group d/b/a Premiere Telemedia, Inc. (``Vertex'')
pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').1 The complaint
alleges that Vertex 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 filed its answer in this proceeding on
September 19, 2002.3
2. During a telephone conference held on
approximately September 20, 2002, the parties
indicated that they were engaged in ongoing
settlement negotiations, and that there was a
significant likelihood of settlement. To
facilitate these ongoing negotiations,
Complainants requested an extension of time by
which they had to file their reply, to October 16,
2002. The Complainants formalized this request in
a letter dated September 23, 2002, in which they
stated that the additional time would enable the
parties to exchange and analyze additional call
data, which would hopefully allow the parties to
settle the dispute.4 This request was granted by
the Chief of the Market Disputes Resolution
Division of the Enforcement Bureau on September
24, 2002. On October 11, 2002, the parties
jointly made another similar request for extension
of time for the Complainants to file their reply.5
The parties repeated that they were continuing to
engage in active settlement negotiations, and that
the additional time ``will foster the parties'
efforts at an expeditious settlement.''6 This
request was also granted.7 A status conference
was later scheduled for November 13, 2002.8
3. On November 7, 2002, Complainants and Vertex filed
a joint motion requesting that we dismiss the formal
complaint in this proceeding with prejudice.9 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
promoting the private resolution of disputes and
eliminating the expenditure of further time and
resources of the parties and of the Commission.
4. 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 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320
of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736,
64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by
sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned
complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety
and the proceeding IS TERMINATED.
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. Vertex Group,
Vertex Group's Answer to Formal Complaint, File No. EB-02-MD-014.
4 APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Vertex Group, Letter
from Jeffrey H. Tignor, Counsel for Complainants, and Lawrence M.
Brenton, Counsel for Defendant, to Warren Firschein, Attorney,
Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC,
File No. EB-02-MD-014 (dated September 23, 2002).
5 APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Vertex Group, Letter
from Jeffrey H. Tignor, Counsel for Complainants, and Lawrence M.
Brenton, Counsel for Defendant, to Warren Firschein, Attorney,
Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC,
File No. EB-02-MD-014 (dated October 11, 2002).
6 Id.
7 See APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Vertex Group,
Letter from Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes
Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Allan C.
Hubbard, Counsel for Complainants, and Lawrence M. Brenton,
Counsel for Defendant, File No. EB-02-MD-014 (October 15, 2002).
8 See APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Vertex Group,
Letter from Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes
Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Allan C.
Hubbard, Counsel for Complainants, and Lawrence M. Brenton,
Counsel for Defendant, File No. EB-02-MD-014 (October 23, 2002).
9 APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. Vertex Group, Joint
Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint With Prejudice, File No. EB-
02-MD-014 (filed November 7, 2002).