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                                              
                                        )                          
     FSH Communications, LLC,                                      
                                        )                          
     Complainant,                                                  
                                        )                          
     v.                                     File No. EB-09-MD-003  
                                        )                          
     AT&T Corporation,                                             
                                        )                          
     and Global Tel*Link Corporation,                              
                                        )                          
     Defendants.                                                   
                                        )                          
                                                                   
                                        )                          
                                                                   
                                        )                          


                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted: December 20, 2012 Released: December 21, 2012

   By the Commission:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. This Memorandum Opinion and Order denies a formal complaint filed by
       FSH Communications, LLC ("FSH") against Defendants AT&T Corporation
       ("AT&T") and Global Tel*Link Corporation ("GTL") under section 208 of
       the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). FSH alleges that
       Defendants are obligated, pursuant to the Commission's payphone
       compensation orders released between 1996 and 2000, to compensate FSH
       for 0+ calls placed from FSH's payphones at the "default" rate
       applying under those orders when there is no compensation agreement.
       FSH asserts that Defendants' failure to pay FSH this 0+ call default
       compensation violates sections 201(b) and 276(b) of the Act. As
       explained below, we find that FSH's reliance on the 1996 to 2000
       Payphone Orders is misplaced. The calls at issue were made between
       January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2008, and are governed by the
       Commission's payphone compensation rules in effect at that time. We
       find that the pertinent rules do not obligate carriers to pay default
       compensation for 0+ calls. Accordingly, we further find that
       Defendants' failure to pay 0+ default compensation does not violate
       sections 201(b) or 276(b) of the Act.

   II. BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Background

    2. FSH is a payphone service provider ("PSP"). In August, 2004, FSH
       purchased from another PSP payphones located in various correctional
       facilities for use by inmates. AT&T served as the presubscribed
       interexchange carrier ("PIC") for these prison phones from January 1,
       2005 to June 1, 2005, and GTL served as the PIC for the phones for the
       remaining period at issue in the Complaint (June 1, 2005 through
       December 31, 2008).

    3. Most of the calls placed from FSH's prison phones were collect 0+
       calls. Because 0+ payphone calls are routed to the payphone's PIC, the
       0+ calls placed from these prison phones during the Complaint period
       were routed to AT&T or GTL. At the time it purchased the prison
       phones, certain of the phones were subject to contracts that did not
       compensate the PSP for 0+ calls (the "Prison Payphones"). In its
       Complaint, FSH seeks default compensation for the 0+ calls placed from
       these Inmate Phones ("Inmate Calls"). FSH admits that it has a
       contractual right to compensation for 0+ calls placed from the
       remaining prison phones, and does not seek default compensation for
       those calls.

     A. Regulatory Background

    4. Section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs the Commission to "establish a
       per call compensation plan to ensure that all [PSPs] are fairly
       compensated for each and every completed . . . call using their
       payphone . . . ." Section 276(d) of the Act defines "payphone" to
       include inmate payphones for the purposes of section 276.

    5. The Commission first addressed a section 276 payphone compensation
       plan in the 1996 Payphone Order. In that order, the Commission
       determined that "once competitive market conditions exist, the most
       appropriate way to ensure that PSPs receive fair compensation for each
       call is to let the market set the price for individual calls
       originated on payphones." The Commission further decided that it would
       "take affirmative steps to ensure fair compensation" only "where the
       market does not or cannot function properly." Consequently, the
       Commission required carriers to compensate PSPs for completed calls
       "at a rate agreed upon by the parties by contract," but also
       established a "default" compensation rate to be paid by carriers for
       certain kinds of completed calls "in the absence of an agreement."

    6. In addressing a payphone compensation plan for 0+ calls, the
       Commission in the 1996 Payphone Order focused on completed 0+ calls
       placed from Bell Operating Company ("BOC") payphones, because the BOCs
       were subject to contracts, entered into prior to passage of the 1996
       Act, that did not compensate them for 0+ calls ("Pre-existing
       contracts"). The Commission specifically found it necessary to provide
       0+ default compensation to BOC PSPs because, in the absence of a
       contract providing for such compensation, BOCs might not otherwise
       receive fair compensation for 0+ calls. The Commission did not make
       such a finding with regard to non-BOC PSPs because these PSPs were
       able to contract with their payphone's PIC for 0+ call compensation.
       The Commission anticipated, however, that default compensation for BOC
       0+ calls would not be indefinite because the Pre-existing contracts
       would eventually lapse and be replaced with negotiated compensation
       arrangements.

    7. The payphone compensation rules promulgated by the 1996 Payphone Order
       state in relevant part as follows:

   [E]very carrier to whom a completed call from a payphone is routed shall
   compensate the [PSP] for the call at a rate agreed upon by the parties by
   contract.... In the absence of an agreement..., the carrier is obligated
   to compensate the [PSP] at a per-call rate [established by the
   Commission].

   The 2001 Payphone Order amended the rule as follows:

   [T]he first facilities-based interexchange carrier to which a completed
   coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call is delivered by
   the local exchange carrier shall compensate the [PSP] for the call at a
   rate agreed upon by the parties by contract.... In the absence of an
   agreement..., the carrier is obligated to compensate the [PSP] at a
   per-call rate [established by the Commission].

   The 2003 Payphone Order further amended the rule, in language that remains
   in effect to date, as follows:

   [A] Completing Carrier that completes a coinless access code or subscriber
   toll-free payphone call from a switch that the Completing Carrier either
   owns or leases shall compensate the [PSP] for that call at a rate agreed
   upon by the parties by contract.... In the absence of an agreement..., the
   carrier is obligated to compensate the [PSP] at a per-call rate
   [established by the Commission].

   III. DISCUSSION

    8. In its Complaint, FSH alleges that Defendants are obligated to pay FSH
       default compensation for the Inmate Calls pursuant to the 1996 to 2000
       Payphone Orders, and that Defendants' failure to do so violates the
       Act. We find, however, that the Inmate Calls, which were all placed
       between January 2005 and December 2008,  are governed by the rules
       that were in effect at the time the calls were placed, i.e., the rules
       promulgated by the 2003 Payphone Order, not the rules promulgated by
       the 1996 to 2000 Payphone Orders cited by FSH. The relevant rules
       require carriers to pay default compensation solely for coinless
       access code and subscriber toll-free payphone calls, but not for 0+
       calls. Thus, the applicable rules, by their terms, do not obligate
       Defendants to pay FSH default compensation for the Inmate Calls.

    9. In seeking to have the Commission apply to this case rules and
       requirements imposed in the 1996 to 2000 Payphone Orders, FSH argues
       that the 2001 and 2003 Payphone Orders only address compensation for
       access code and subscriber toll-free payphone calls, and that the
       Commission did not intend to alter the obligation to pay default
       compensation for 0+ calls imposed in the 1996 to 2000 Payphone Orders.
       As support, FSH points to a statement in a footnote in the 2001
       Payphone Order that 0+ calls were not at issue in that order. We
       disagree, and find that FSH has misconstrued the Commission's intent
       in those subsequent orders. The 2001 and 2003 Payphone Orders, and the
       rules adopted in those orders, make clear that the default
       compensation provisions no longer apply to calls other than coinless
       access code and subscriber toll-free payphone calls. The footnote
       cited by FSH does not override the clear statement of the Commission's
       intent, as evidenced by the unambiguous language of the rules
       promulgated by the 2001 and 2003 Payphone Orders, to limit default
       compensation going forward to coinless access code and subscriber
       toll-free calls. Thus, FSH's claim that the Commission intended for
       calls other than coinless access code and subscriber toll-free
       payphone calls to continue to be subject to default compensation is
       not supported by the Commission's orders and rules. 

   10. FSH argues further that the 2001 and 2003 Payphone Orders, and the
       rules promulgated therein, cannot be construed to eliminate 0+
       compensation because they do not contain a reasoned explanation for
       such a rule change. We find, however, that the time for raising this
       type of procedural challenge to those orders and rules has long
       passed. To the extent that FSH believes that the current rules are
       deficient, then the appropriate course of action would be to file a
       petition for rulemaking with the Commission.

   11. Finally, while not determinative, FSH cannot claim to be unfairly
       prejudiced by the Commission denying its Complaint. The default
       compensation rates for 0+ calls were originally adopted as a
       transition mechanism for BOC PSPs bound by Pre-existing Contracts; FSH
       is not a BOC and does not argue that the Prison Payphones are subject
       to Pre-existing Contracts. What is more, FSH purchased the Prison
       Payphones in August 2004, long after the Commission ended that
       transition in the 2001 and 2003 Payphone Orders.

   12. Thus, we conclude that FSH has not demonstrated that Defendants
       violated the Commission's payphone compensation rules by failing to
       pay default compensation for the Inmate Calls, because the
       Commission's rules in effect at the time the Inmate Calls were placed
       do not provide for such compensation. We therefore also conclude that
       FSH has not demonstrated that Defendants violated sections 201(b) or
       276(b) of the Act.

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSE

   13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201,
       208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
       S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, 276, that the Complaint is DENIED,
       and that THIS PROCEEDING IS TERMINATED.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

   Formal Complaint, File No. EB-09-MD-003 (filed Mar. 13, 2009)
   ("Complaint").

   47 U.S.C. S: 208.

   Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation
   Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order, 11 FCC
   Rcd 20541 (1996) ("1996 Payphone Order"); Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC
   Rcd 21233 (1996) ("Reconsideration Order"); Second Report and Order, 13
   FCC Rcd 1778 (1997) ("1997 Payphone Order"); Third Report and Order, and
   Order on Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 2545
   (1999) (subsequent history omitted) ("1999 Payphone Order") (collectively
   referred to as the "1996 to 2000 Payphone Orders").

   "A 0+ call occurs when the dialer dials `0' and then the desired telephone
   number. 0+ calls include credit card, collect, and third-number billing
   calls." 1999 Payphone Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 2569, P: 53 n.90 (citations
   omitted).

   47 U.S.C. S:S: 201(b), 276(b). See, e.g., Complaint at 2-3, P:P: 1-2 &
   n.3, 5-6, P:P: 13-15, 14-15, P:P: 38-45, 23-24, P: 71; Reply of FSH
   Communications, LLC, File No. EB-09-MD-003 (filed Aug. 26, 2009) ("Reply")
   at 2-3 & n.4.

   The Commission released a series of payphone compensation orders after the
   1996 to 2000 Payphone Orders, which amended the Commission's payphone
   compensation rules. See Implementation of the Pay Telephone
   Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act
   of 1996, Second Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 8098 (2001)
   (subsequent history omitted)  ("2001 Payphone Order"); Fourth Order on
   Reconsideration and Order on Remand, 17 FCC Rcd 2020 (2002) ("2002
   Payphone Order"); Order on Remand and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17
   FCC Rcd 6347 (2002); Fifth Order on Reconsideration and Order on Remand,
   17 FCC Rcd 21274 (2002); Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19975 (2003) ("2003
   Payphone Order"); Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 21457 (2004)
   (subsequent history omitted) (collectively, with the 1996 to 2000 Payphone
   Orders, referred to as the "Payphone Orders").

   See, e.g., Joint Statement of FSH Communications, LLC, AT&T Corporation,
   and Global Tel*Link Corporation, File No. EB-09-MD-003 (filed Nov. 18,
   2009) ("Joint Statement") at 7, P: 1; Complaint at 7, P: 19.

   See, e.g., Joint Statement at 7-8, P:P: 3-4; Complaint at 7-9, P:P: 20-24.

   See Joint Statement at 8 P: 6; Complaint Ex. 4 (McGuane Dec'n) at 2, P: 2.

   See 2002 Payphone Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 2028, P: 21.

   See Joint Statement at 8, P: 6.

   See Joint Statement at 8, P: 9 ("at some point AT&T ceased making
   [payphone compensation] payments to FSH"); id. at 10, P: 17 (GTL did not
   pay per-call compensation to FSH for [Inmate Calls] ...."). An inmate PSP
   does not necessarily choose and contract directly with an inmate
   payphone's PIC, and is not necessarily compensated on a per-call basis.
   The governmental entity in charge of the correctional facility in which
   inmate payphones are located usually controls the phones and awards a
   contract to provide inmate payphone service to a prime contractor, which
   may be a PSP, a platform service provider, an IXC, or other entity.
   Compensation of the various parties involved in providing the inmate
   payphone service may take any number of forms, including per-call
   compensation or monthly commissions. See Reply of FSH Communications, LLC,
   File No. EB-09-MD-003 (filed Aug. 26, 2009), Dubay Dec'n at 2-3, P:P: 3-
   5.

   See, e.g., Joint Statement at 9-10, P:P: 15-16; Joint Statement, Disputed
   Facts to be Proven by FSH, at 11, P: 2; Complaint at 8-9, P:P: 22-23, 10,
   P: 26; Reply at 6-9.

   See Joint Statement at 9-10, P:P: 14-16; Complaint at 10, P: 26; Reply at
   6-9, 13. AT&T alleges that, pursuant to a master contract between AT&T and
   FSH, AT&T paid commissions to FSH compensating FSH for 0+ calls placed
   from at least some of the Prison Payphones as to which FSH's Complaint
   seeks 0+compensation. See Answer of AT&T, File No. EB-09-MD-003 (filed
   June 29, 2009) at 23-24, 34, P: 7 ("AT&T Answer"). FSH disagrees, arguing
   that, pursuant to the master contract, the commissions were paid to the
   site owner, not FSH. Reply at 6-9, 32-33.

   47 U.S.C. S: 276(b)(1)(A).

   47 U.S.C. S: 276(d).

   1996 Payphone Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20567, P: 49.

   Id.

   See 1996 Payphone Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20722 (Appendix E), S: 64.1300(a),
   (c).

   1996 Payphone Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20569, P: 53.

   See 1996 Payphone Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 29547, P: 11; Reconsideration
   Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21259, P: 51 n.209 ("[T]hese [pre-]existing contracts
   will lapse in the years ahead and will be replaced with contracts under
   which the BOCs [w]ill receive whatever compensation arrangement they
   negotiated with the respective location providers.") The Commission also
   determined in the 1996 Payphone Order that 0+ calls placed from inmate
   payphones would be treated in the same manner as 0+ calls placed from
   other payphones for the purposes of its payphone compensation plan. 1996
   Payphone Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20579, P: 74. Accord Reconsideration Order,
   11 FCC Rcd at 21259-60, P: 52, 21269, P: 72; 1997 Payphone Order, 13 FCC
   Rcd at 1780, P: 2.

   1996 Payphone Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20722 (App. E), S: 64.1300(a), (c); 47
   C.F.R. S: 64.1300(a), (c) (1996) (emphasis added).

   2001 Payphone Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8111 (App. B), S: 64.1300(a); 47 C.F.R.
   S: 64.1300(a), (c) (2001) (emphasis added). The 2001 Payphone Order was
   vacated for failure to provide proper notice and opportunity for comment.
   See Sprint Corp. v. FCC, 315 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The Circuit Court
   stayed its vacatur and mandate, however, through September 30, 2003. See
   Sprint v. FCC, 2003 WL 1877308 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The Commission addressed
   the Circuit Court's remand in the 2003 Payphone Order. See 2003 Payphone
   Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 19976.

   2003 Payphone Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20018 (App. C), S: 64.1300(b); 47
   C.F.R. S: 64.1300(b), (c) (2003 et seq.) (emphasis added).

   See Complaint at 2-3, P: 1-2 & n. 3, 14-15, P:P: 38-45. See also Reply at
   2-3 & n.4. The Commission has held that failure to pay payphone
   compensation in accordance with the Commission's rules requiring such
   payment constitutes a violation of section 201(b) of the Act. See, e.g.,
   APCC Services, Inc. v. Radiant Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
   Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8962 (2008); Comtel of the South v. Operator
   Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 548 (2008).

   47 C.F.R. S: 64.1300 (2003) - (2006).

   See, e.g., Complaint at 6, P: 14, 16, n.18; Reply at 3, 24-26.

   See Complaint at 6, P: 14 and Reply at 25 (citing 2001 Payphone Order, 16
   FCC Rcd at 8104, P: 12 n.30 ("Other coinless payphone calls such as `0'
   (operator) and `411' (directory assistance) are not at issue in this
   clarification.")).

   See para. 7 supra (comparing  47 C.F.R. S: 64.1300 (1996) (requiring
   carriers to pay default compensation for all completed calls in the
   absence of a compensation agreement) with 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1300 (2001 et
   seq.) (requiring carriers to pay default compensation only for completed
   coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone calls in the absence
   of a compensation agreement)).

   Reply at 3, 26 (citing Atchinson, Topeka & Santa Fe Rwy Co. v. Wichita Brd
   of Trade, 412 U. S. 800 (1973) and NAACP v. FCC, 682 F.2d 993, 998 (D.C.
   Cir. 1982)).

   See, e.g., JEM Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
   (procedural challenges to agency regulations will not be entertained
   outside the statutory period for seeking direct judicial review of the
   order adopting the regulation).

   To the extent that FSH argues that the Commission's payphone compensation
   plan for 0+ calls fails to fulfill the Commission's obligations under
   section 271(d)(6) of the Act, see Reply at 25-26, FSH is incorrect. The
   Commission did not, in the 2001 and 2003 Payphone Orders or elsewhere,
   eliminate all compensation for 0+ calls. Rather, the Commission merely
   changed its rules to eliminate default compensation for 0+ calls. See
   supra para. 7. Nor does the fact that AT&T may have paid compensation for
   certain 0+ calls placed from the Prison Payphones alter the Commission's
   0+ compensation plan established in the Payphone Orders and rules. See
   Reply at 26-27; Joint Statement at 8, P: 8.

   See supra para. 6.

   See Joint Statement at 7, P: 2. Although at the time FSH purchased them,
   the Prison Payphones were subject to contracts providing no per-call
   compensation, FSH presumably was aware of this fact at the time, and thus
   could have (and, indeed, may have) protected itself by, for example,
   paying a reduced purchase price. Moreover, FSH has not established that it
   received no compensation for the Inmate Calls in place of per-call
   compensation, such as commissions. See AT&T Answer at 23-24, 34, P: 7
   (alleging that FSH received commissions for the Prison Payphones); Global
   Tel*Link Corporation Answer File No. EB-09-MD-003 (filed June 29, 2009) at
   27-28, P: 56 (alleging that FSH was aware that it would not receive
   per-call 0+ compensation for certain Prison Payphones).

   (. . . continued from previous page)

                                                            (continued . . .)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-162

   6

                  Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-162