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
In the Matter of )
)
CoreComm Communications, Inc., )
and )
Z-Tel Communications, Inc., )
)
Complainants, )
) File No. EB-01-MD-017
v. )
)
SBC Communications Inc., )
Southwestern Bell Telephone )
Company, )
Pacific Bell Telephone Company, )
Nevada Bell Telephone Company, )
The Southern New England )
Telephone Company, )
Illinois Bell Telephone )
Company, )
Indiana Bell Telephone Company, )
Michigan Bell Telephone )
Company, )
The Ohio Bell Telephone
Company, and
Wisconsin Bell, Inc.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Adopted: October 4, 2005 Released:
October 5, 2005
By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division,
Enforcement Bureau:
On August 28, 2001, CoreComm Communications, Inc.
(``CoreComm'') and Z-Tel Communications, Inc. (``Z-Tel'')
(collectively, ``Complainants'') filed a formal complaint
pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended (``Act''),1 against nine incumbent local exchange
carriers and their parent corporation, SBC Communications
Inc. (collectively, ``Defendants'').2 In their Complaint,
Complainants allege that Defendants violated sections
201(b), 202(a), 251(c)(1), and 251(c)(3) of the Act,3
Commission rules 51.309(a), 51.309(b), and 51.313(b),4 and
paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions.5
In the Liability Order,6 the Commission granted
Complainants' claim that defendants Illinois Bell Telephone
Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and
Wisconsin Bell, Inc. violated paragraph 56 of the
SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions and, in this regard,
section 201(b) of the Act, but otherwise denied the
Complaint.
Defendants petitioned for review of the Liability Order
before the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit.7 The Court of Appeals vacated the
Liability Order and remanded certain issues for further
proceedings before the Commission.8
On September 29, 2005, Complainants filed a Motion9
requesting that we dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
Complainants state in the Motion that the parties have
settled their dispute and that Defendants do not oppose the
Motion.
We grant the Motion. The Liability Order has been vacated,
and Complainants have reached a mutually-acceptable
resolution of their dispute with Defendants. Dismissing the
Complaint 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 the Commission.
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 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
Lisa B. Griffin
Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division
Enforcement
Bureau
_________________________
1 47 U.S.C. § 208.
2 See Formal Complaint, File No. EB-01-MD-017 (filed Aug.
28, 2001) (``Complaint''). The Complaint requested that
Commission staff bifurcate the proceeding pursuant to
section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §
1.722(d), and address liability issues prior to
consideration of damages issues. Complaint at 24-25, ¶ 99.
3
47 U.S.C. §§ 201(b), 202(a), 252(c)(1), (c)(3).
4
47 C.F.R. §§ 51.309(a), 51.309(b), 51.313(b).
5
Applications of Ameritech Corp., Transferor, and SBC
Communications Inc., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer
Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and
Lines Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the
Communications Act and Parts 5, 22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95 and
101 of the Commission's Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
14 FCC Rcd 14712 (1999) (``SBC/Ameritech Merger Order'') at
Appendix C (``Conditions'').
6
CoreComm Communications, Inc. and Z-Tel
Communications, Inc. v. SBC Communications Inc. et al.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 7568 (2003)
(``Liability Order''), vacated and remanded sub nom. SBC
Communications Inc. v. FCC, 407 F.3d 1223 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
7
Petition for Review sub nom. SBC Communications Inc. v.
FCC, No. 03-1147 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
8
SBC Communications Inc. v. FCC, 407 F.3d 1223 (D.C.
Cir. 2005).
9
Motion to Dismiss, File No. EB-01-MD-017 (filed Sept.
29, 2005) (``Motion'').