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
Broadview Networks, Inc., )
)
Complainant, )
)
) File No. EB-04-MDIC-0105
v. )
)
Verizon Telephone Companies and )
Verizon New York, Inc., )
)
Defendants.
ORDER
Adopted: May 10, 2005 Released: May 11, 2005
By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement
Bureau:
1. On April 15, 2005, the complainant, Broadview Networks,
Inc. (``Broadview''), and the defendants, Verizon Telephone
Companies and Verizon New York Inc. (``Verizon''), filed a joint
motion to withdraw with prejudice the Complaint1 that Broadview
filed against Verizon on December 20, 2003.2 In short, the
Complaint alleges that Verizon violated sections 201(b) and 203
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. §§
201(b) and 203), by improperly backbilling for collocation
charges, imposing charges that are not listed in Verizon's
federal tariff, and imposing charges from a state tariff for
services ordered under a federal tariff. The Motion states that
the parties ``have entered into a Settlement Agreement effective
March 18, 2005, under which the Parties successfully resolved
their outstanding collocation and termination issues.''3
2. We are satisfied that dismissing the Complaint 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
this Commission.
3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1,
4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the
authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.716-1.718 of
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, and 1.716-
1.718, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is
DISMISSED with prejudice.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Alexander P. Starr
Chief, Market Disputes Resolution
Division
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
1 Formal Complaint of Broadview Networks, Inc., File No. EB-03-
MD-021 (filed Dec. 30, 2003) (``Complaint'').
2 Joint Notice of Withdrawal of Broadview Network, Inc.'s Formal
Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-021 (filed Apr. 15, 2005)
(``Motion''). The original file number assigned to this
proceeding was EB-03-MD-021, which is the number the Motion
references. On November 10, 2004, however, the Enforcement
Bureau partially granted a Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, Defer that Verizon filed on August 4, 2004. See
Broadview Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Telephone Companies and
Verizon New York, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd
22216 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (``Dismissal Order''). The Dismissal
Order deferred proceedings relating to Broadview's formal
complaint in light of a court order directing the parties to
proceed to arbitration. Id., 19 FCC Rcd at 22216, ¶ 1. The
Dismissal Order also converted, for purposes of internal docket
administration only, Broadview's formal complaint to an informal
complaint, while the parties pursued arbitration. Id. In so
doing, the Bureau assigned this matter a new docket number: EB-
04-MDIC-0105. Today's Order dismisses with prejudice the
informal complaint proceeding. There presently is no formal
complaint proceeding pending before the Commission, and under
this Order, no complaint of any kind could be filed by Broadview
at the Commission regarding the subject matter raised in
Broadview's filings here.
3 Motion at 2.