******************************************************** 
                      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



In the Matter of                 )
                                )
WORLDCOM, INC.                   )
                                )
                                 )
Complainant,                     )
                                )    EB-01-MDIC-1158
          v.                     )
                                )
VIRGIN ISLANDS TELEPHONE         )
CORPORATION                      )
d/b/a INNOVATIVE TELEPHONE       )
                                )
                        
Defendant.


                              ORDER

   Adopted:  January 8, 2002            Released:  January 9, 
2002

By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement 
Bureau:

     1.   On September 28, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.716, WorldCom, Inc. 
(``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against Virgin Islands 
Telephone Corporation d/b/a Innovative Telephone (``Vitelco'').1  
WorldCom alleges that Vitelco has violated the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and the Commission's rules 
regarding the maximum allowable rate-of-return for local exchange 
carriers in 47 C.F.R. § 65.700 et seq.  According to a proposed 
order attached to a joint motion filed by the parties on October 
11, 2001, ``Vitelco is expected to respond to the complaint by 
denying all of the allegations in the complaint and claiming it 
has no liability to WorldCom.''2

     2.   WorldCom's claims are in key respects similar to claims 
presented by General Communications, Inc. (``GCI'') in a formal 
complaint on which the Commission ruled in favor of the 
complainant.3  That ruling is now under review by the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (``D.C. 
Circuit'').4

     3.   Because the outcome of that appeal is likely to affect 
the resolution of WorldCom's informal complaint, and to conserve 
the resources of the parties and the Commission, the parties 
submitted a joint motion on October 11, 2001, proposing that the 
Commission require Vitelco not to respond to WorldCom's informal 
complaint until ninety (90) days after the D.C. Circuit's 
decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 
01-1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been 
exhausted.5

     4.   We are satisfied that granting this joint request, as 
modified, regarding Vitelco's filing obligation will serve the 
public interest.  The approach the Parties have proposed will 
fully protect both WorldCom's and Vitelco's rights, conserve 
private and public resources, and cause no injury to other 
parties.  We note that our standard procedure is to allow 
defendant carriers approximately 30 days from the date we 
transmit the complaint to file a response.  The Joint Motion asks 
that the Enforcement Bureau ``direct Vitelco that it not respond 
to WORLDCOM's informal complaint until ninety (90) days after a 
decision on the merits'' by the D.C. Circuit in ACS of Anchorage, 
Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059, has become final and appellate 
remedies have been exhausted.6  Given the language contained in 
the Joint Motion, we direct Vitelco to file its response no 
sooner than ninety (90) days after the D.C. Circuit's decision on 
the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059, 
has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted, but 
no later than one hundred and twenty (120) days after the D.C. 
Circuit's decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. 
FCC, Case No. 01-1059, has become final and appellate remedies 
have been exhausted.

     5.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 
4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 
154(i), 154(j), 208 and the authority delegated by sections 
0.111, 0.311, 1.717, and 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 
C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.717, and 1.718, that Vitelco respond to 
WorldCom's informal complaint no sooner than ninety (90) days 
after the D.C. Circuit's decision on the merits in ACS of 
Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059, has become final and 
appellate remedies have been exhausted, but no later than one 
hundred and twenty (120) days after the D.C. Circuit's decision 
on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059, 
has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted.



                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION





                         Alexander P. Starr
                         Chief
                         Market Disputes Resolution Division
                         Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

1         Informal Complaint of WorldCom, Inc. Against Virgin 
Islands Telephone Corporation d/b/a Innovative Telephone, EB-01-
MDIC-1158 (filed Sept. 28, 2001).
2         See Proposed Order at 1 submitted with Joint Motion of 
WorldCom, Inc. and Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation d/b/a 
Innovative Telephone Regarding Procedure for Response of Informal 
Complaint (filed Oct. 11, 2001) (``Joint Motion''). 
3         General Communications, Inc. v. Alaska Communications 
Systems Holdings et al., EB-00-MD-016, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 16 FCC Rcd 2834 (2001) (``GCI Order'').
4         ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1059 (D.C. 
Cir. Filed Feb. 7, 2001).
5         Joint Motion at 1, 4.
6         Joint Motion at 4 (emphasis added).