******************************************************** 
                      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                 )
                                )
EARTHLINK, INC.,                 )
                                )
             Complainant,        )
                                )    File No. EB-01-MD-014
            v.                   )
                                )
SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC,         )
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY,  )
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE      )
COMPANY,                         )
SBC ADVANCED SOLUTIONS, INC.     )
                                )
              Defendants.        )

                              ORDER

Adopted:  December 23, 2002                  Released:  December 
24, 2002

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

1.   On August 20, 2001, EarthLink, Inc. (``EarthLink'') filed a 
  formal complaint against Defendants SBC Communications, Inc. 
  (``SBC''), Pacific Bell Telephone Company (``Pacific Bell''), 
  Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (``SWBT''), and SBC 
  Advanced Solutions, Inc. (``ASI'') (collectively, 
  ``Defendants'').1  The complaint alleges that Defendants' 
  provisioning of wholesale ADSL transport service to EarthLink 
  was unreasonable under section 201(b) of the Communications 
  Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and unreasonably 
  discriminatory under section 202(a) of the Act.2  It also 
  alleges that Defendants' provisioning of their Operations 
  Support Systems for ADSL transport service was unreasonable 
  under section 201(b) and unreasonably discriminatory under 
  section 202(a).3  It further alleges that Defendants' 
  inadequate provisioning of ADSL transport service reduced and 
  impaired the quality of ADSL service available to EarthLink 
  and its subscribers in violation of section 214 of the Act, 
  that Defendants' discriminatorily reduced the cost of 
  acquiring ADSL transport service for their affiliate in 
  violation of section 202(a) of the Act, and that Defendants' 
  ADSL transport service provisioning violated the Commission's 
  Computer II and Computer III requirements.4   
 
2.   On December 23, 2002, the parties filed a Joint Motion For 
  Dismissal of Complaint With Prejudice, in which they state 
  that they have reached a mutually-acceptable resolution of the 
  issues alleged in the complaint, and move that we dismiss the 
  complaint with prejudice.5  

3.   We grant the parties' joint 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 by eliminating the need 
  for further litigation and the expenditure of additional time 
  and resources of the parties and this Commission.
 
4.   ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 
  and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
  U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of 
  the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736, and 
  authority delegated by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the 
  Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the joint 
  motion to dismiss with prejudice the above-captioned complaint 
  filed by EarthLink, Inc. IS GRANTED in its entirety.

5.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 
  208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
  §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 of the 
  Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736, and 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         EarthLink, Inc. v. SBC Communications, Inc., Pacific 
Bell Telephone Company, Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone 
Company, SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc., File No. EB-01-MD-014 
(filed Aug. 20, 2001) (``Complaint'').   ``ADSL'' refers to 
asymmetric digital subscriber line service, a service that uses 
digital subscriber line (``DSL'') technology.    
     
2         Complaint at ¶¶ 66-84, 90-99. 

3         Id. at  ¶¶ 100-16.

4         Id. at ¶¶ 85-89, 117-21; 122-36 (citing Third Computer 
Inquiry, Report and Order, 104 F.C.C. 2d 958 (1986) (Computer 
III) (subsequent citations omitted); Policy and Rules Concerning 
the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace; Implementation of 
Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 
1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - Review of Customer Premises 
Equipment and Enhanced Services Unbundling Rules in the 
Interexchange, Exchange Access and Local Exchange Markets, Report 
and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 7418 (2001)).

5         Joint Motion For Dismissal of Complaint With Prejudice, 
File No. EB-01-MD-014 (filed Dec. 23, 2002).