FCC Web Documents citing 1.717

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.pdf
  • Global Access, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-07-MDIC-0026 NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0006 FRN: 0009838616 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 9, 2008 Released: June 10, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') finds that Global Access, Inc. (``Global Access'' or ``Defendant'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to an informal complaint served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Global Access is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to (i)
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2506A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2506A1.pdf
  • November 28, 2008 By the Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (``Bureau'') and Alltel Communications, LLC d/b/a Alltel Wireless (``Alltel''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Alltel for possible violations of section 1.717 of the Commission's rules regarding Alltel's apparent failure to timely respond to informal consumer complaints. The Bureau and Alltel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2702A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2702A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170012 FRN: 0007715915 Adopted: December 24, 2008 Released: December 24, 2008 By the Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (``Bureau'') and Startec Global Operating Company (``Startec''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Startec for possible violations of section 1.717 of the Commission's rules regarding Startec's apparent failure to timely respond to informal consumer complaints. The Bureau and Startec have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2729A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2729A1.pdf
  • 0007748817 Adopted: December 19, 2008 Released: December 22, 2008 By the Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') and AT&T Inc (``AT&T''). The Consent Decree cancels a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') and terminates a subsequent investigation by the Bureau against AT&T for possible violations of section 1.717 of the Commission's rules regarding AT&T's failure to respond to informal consumer complaints. The Bureau and AT&T have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve these matters. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-416A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-416A1.pdf
  • Communications, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-07-TC-5001 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170014 FRN: 0009051731 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Blue Casa Communications, Inc. (``Blue Casa'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Blue Casa by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Blue Casa is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-417A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-417A1.pdf
  • Sprint Nextel Corporation Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1068 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170027 FRN: 0003769890 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Sprint Nextel Corporation (``Sprint Nextel'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Sprint Nextel by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Sprint Nextel is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-418A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-418A1.pdf
  • Amp'd Mobile, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1063 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170022 FRN: 0014731822 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. (``Amp'd Mobile'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Amp'd Mobile by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Amp'd Mobile is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-419A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-419A1.pdf
  • Link Systems, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1061 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170017 FRN: 0004364451 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Link Systems, Inc. (``Link Systems'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to one (1) informal complaint served on Link Systems by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Link Systems is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-420A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-420A1.pdf
  • of Cricket Communications, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1064 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170023 FRN: 0004321139 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Cricket Communications, Inc. (``Cricket'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Cricket by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cricket is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process, administered by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-421A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-421A1.pdf
  • Cooperative Communications, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1065 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170021 FRN: 0003747409 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Cooperative Communications, Inc. (``Cooperative Communications'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to one (1) informal complaint served on Cooperative Communications by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cooperative Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-422A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-422A1.pdf
  • Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1067 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170026 FRN: 0005003025 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Reduced Rate Long Distance, LLC (``Reduced Rate Long Distance'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Reduced Rate Long Distance by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Reduced Rate Long Distance is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. BACKGROUND The
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-423A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-423A1.pdf
  • International, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-07-TC-5038 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170016 FRN: 0006807309 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Total Call International, Inc. (``Total Call'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to one (1) informal complaint served on Total Call by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Total Call is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.pdf
  • No. EB-07-MDIC-0021 File No. EB-07-MDIC-0025 File No. EB-07-MDIC-0030 File No. EB-07-MDIC-0049 File No. EB-07-MDIC-0055 NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0001 FRN: 0017-4416-35 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') finds that West Star Telecommunications, LLC (``West Star'' or ``Defendant'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules and certain Commission letter orders by failing to respond to six informal complaints served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that West Star is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $24,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.pdf
  • of WorldOne Telecommunications Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 NAL/Acct. No. 2008-0329-0004 FRN: 0013-1785-38 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: Feb. 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') finds that WorldOne Telecommunications, LLC (``WorldOne'' or ``Defendant'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to an informal complaint served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that WorldOne is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to (i) allege
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.pdf
  • Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-MDIC-0052 NAL/Acct. No. 2008-0329-0003 FRN: 0013-2184-09 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') finds that International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc. (``ITEG'' or ``Defendant'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to an informal complaint served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that ITEG is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to (i) allege
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-427A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-427A1.pdf
  • the Matter of Alltel Wireless Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1062 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170024 FRN: 0003803483 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Alltel Wireless (``Alltel'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to four (4) informal complaints served on Alltel by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Alltel is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process, administered by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-428A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-428A1.pdf
  • the Matter of AT&T, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1066 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170025 FRN: 0007748817 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that AT&T, Inc. (``AT&T'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to twenty-four (24) informal complaints served on AT&T by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that AT&T is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $96,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process, administered by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-MDIC-0047 File No. EB-06-MDIC-0084 File No. EB-07-MDIC-0019 NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0002 FRN: 0006-7006-11 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 6, 2008 Released: March 7, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') finds that Telefyne Inc. (``Telefyne'' or ``Defendant'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to three informal complaints served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telefyne is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $12,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to (i) allege
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.pdf
  • for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-07-MDIC-0001 File No. EB-07-MDIC-0027 NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0005 FRN: 0010-4154-04 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 6, 2008 Released: March 7, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') finds that Global Network Communication West, Inc. (``GNCW'' or ``Defendant'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two informal complaints served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that GNCW is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to (i) allege
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.pdf
  • Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In the Feb. 18, 2008 NAL, we found that Blue Casa apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two informal complaints served on Blue Casa by the Consumers and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-487A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-487A1.pdf
  • attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) and Horizon Telecom, Inc. (Horizon) and Reduced Rate Long Distance, LLC (Reduced Rate Long Distance). The Consent Decree terminates the investigation initiated by the Bureau regarding Horizon's compliance with Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), and Sections 1.717, 64.1120, and 64.1130 of the Commission's rules, and finds that the forfeiture proposed in the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture should not be imposed. The Consent Decree also terminates the investigation initiated by the Bureau regarding Reduced Rate Long Distance's compliance with Section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, and finds that the forfeiture proposed in the Notice of Apparent
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.pdf
  • (both holding that Network, and not the Debit Card Providers, are liable to APCC). To the extent that Network is referring to APCC's failure to sue Network until September 30, 2002, the two-year statute of limitations in section 415(b) of the Act adequately addresses any concerns arising from the timing of APCC's action. 47 C.F.R. § 1.716. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.47(h) (emphasis added). 47 C.F.R. § 1.47(d). See, e.g., March 2002 Informal Complaint; Damages Joint Statement at 6; APCC Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Complainants' Initial Brief on Issues Designated by the Commission's June 21, 2005 Letter Ruling, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed July 1, 2005) (``Complainants' Initial Brief on Service''), Attachment 10
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-70A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-70A1.pdf
  • 0009704925 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 29, 2008 Released: February 29, 2008 By the Commission: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Horizon Telecom, Inc. (``Horizon'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), and sections 1.717, 64.1120, and 64.1130 of the Commission's rules. As discussed in more detail herein, Horizon has apparently willfully or repeatedly failed to respond on a timely basis to twenty-one (21) informal complaints served on it by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). In addition, it apparently changed the preferred carriers of one hundred twenty-five (125) consumers without proper authorization, a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2158A1.txt
  • Inc., Fairpoint Communications Corp., Focal Communications Corp., Intermedia Communications, Inc., Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC, North County Communications Corp., Winstar Communications, Inc., et al., and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T is required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints relate back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. In light of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2159A1.txt
  • ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0016 ORDER Adopted: September 14, 2001 Released: September 14, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of our rules, Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (``Sprint'') filed an informal complaint against CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC''). On March 22, 2001, CTC filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in Sprint's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Sprint is required to convert these informal complaints into a formal complaint on or before September 22, 2001, to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint. In light of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2321A1.txt
  • Inc., Fairpoint Communications Corp., Focal Communications Corp., Intermedia Communications, Inc., Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC, North County Communications Corp., Winstar Communications, Inc., et al., and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2428A1.txt
  • Inc., Fairpoint Communications Corp., Focal Communications Corp., Intermedia Communications, Inc., Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC, North County Communications Corp., Winstar Communications, Inc., et al., and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2551A1.txt
  • (``Focal''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2661A1.txt
  • (``Focal''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2720A1.txt
  • (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. 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 ACS file its response to AT&T's informal complaint no sooner than sixty (60) 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2721A1.txt
  • (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. 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 AT&T'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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2780A1.txt
  • (``Focal''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2920A1.txt
  • Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against CT Communications, Inc. and CTC Exchange Services (``CTC Exchange''), Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. (``Consolidated''), CTC Telcom, Inc. (CTC Telcom), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001, filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1065A1.txt
  • ORDER Adopted: May 7, 2002 Released: May 8, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above-captioned matter. On March 16, 2001, CTC Telcom filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of CTC Telcom's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2070A1.txt
  • 27, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 9, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, CTC Communications Corp. (``CTC'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Verizon New England, Inc. and Verizon New York, Inc. (collectively ``Verizon'') in the above-captioned matter. On February 27, 2002, Verizon filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in CTC's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, CTC was required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of Verizon's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 9, 2002, filing date of the informal complaint. Since
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-210A1.txt
  • (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2204A1.txt
  • section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., Independent Networks Co., Mark Twain Communications Company, and Northern Valley Communications, LLC (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs''), filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the November and December, 2001 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2340A1.txt
  • and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., and Independent Networks Co. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2552A1.txt
  • and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., and Independent Networks Co. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2758A1.txt
  • Bureau: In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3013A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3013A1.txt
  • Bureau: In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3182A1.txt
  • Bureau: In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3305A1.txt
  • Bureau: In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3414A1.txt
  • of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.716. In addition to this request, the parties asked that the filing date of the informal complaint be deemed September 5, 2002, which is the filing date of the formal complaint, and that the Commission extend the six-month period within which the informal complaint must be converted to a formal complaint under sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.717-18, to November 1, 2003 (the ``Conversion Date''). Moreover, the parties requested that either party or the Commission on its own motion may, upon a showing of good cause, move for an extension of the Conversion Date. The parties also requested that the Commission waive those portions of sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3442A1.txt
  • described in the documents filed by DDA in this matter. Both SBC and Verizon responded to DDA's informal complaint on June 15, 2001. Commission staff closed that proceeding no later than March 21, 2002, when Commission staff notified DDA in writing that ``the Consumer Information Bureau has closed the file on the above referenced informal complaint, in accordance with Section 1.717 of the Commission's Rules.'' Under the Commission's rules, if DDA was dissatisfied with either the defendants' responses or the Commission's closure of the informal complaint proceeding, DDA's remedy was to timely file a formal complaint, not to file an application for review. Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that DDA could have properly filed an application for review, DDA failed to do
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3467A1.txt
  • Bureau: In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3492A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3492A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3492A1.txt
  • December 18, 2002 Released: December 20, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Cedar is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-34A1.txt
  • (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. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-35A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-35A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-35A1.txt
  • (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-360A1.txt
  • (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-450A1.txt
  • 26, 2002 Released: February 27, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-597A1.txt
  • 12, 2002 Released: March 13, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-721A1.txt
  • 26, 2002 Released: March 27, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-822A1.txt
  • 10, 2002 Released: April 11, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-910A1.txt
  • to establish a unified, streamlined process for the intake and resolution of informal complaints filed by consumers against entities regulated by the Commission. Through this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposes to establish a consumer complaint mechanism patterned after the existing rules for informal complaints filed against common carriers pursuant to Section 208 of the Act contained in Sections 1.717-1.718 of the Commission's rules. A summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published in the Federal Register at 67 Fed. Reg. 18560 (April 16, 2002). Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before May 16, 2002, and reply comments on or before May 31,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-960A1.txt
  • ORDER Adopted: April 25, 2002 Released: April 26, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above-captioned matter. On March 16, 2001, CTC Telcom filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T was required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of CTC Telcom's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1083A1.txt
  • Adopted: April 3, 2003 Released: April 4, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1174A1.txt
  • Adopted: April 17, 2003 Released: April 21, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-170A1.txt
  • 2001 and April 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002 and July 19, 2002, AT&T filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1900A1.txt
  • 1.711-1.718. Notesan's informal complaint alleges, inter alia, that ACS has obtained de facto control of certain licensed facilities owned by Neptune, in violation of section 214 of the Act and section 1.767 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. § 214; 47 C.F.R. § 1.767. As of this date, Neptune and ACS have responded to the informal complaint pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.717, but WCI has not. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Notesan originally had to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of the defendant carriers' reports (in this case, Notesan filed on August 30, 2002, and ACS filed on September 4, 2002) to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-207A1.txt
  • Adopted: January 27, 2003 Released: January 28, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-22A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-22A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-22A1.txt
  • Adopted: January 7, 2003 Released: January 8, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-351A1.txt
  • 1.711-1.718. Notesan's informal complaint alleges, inter alia, that ACS has obtained de facto control of certain licensed facilities owned by Neptune, in violation of section 214 of the Act and section 1.767 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. § 214; 47 C.F.R. § 1.767. As of this date, Neptune and ACS have responded to the informal complaint pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.717, but WCI has not. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Notesan must convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of the defendant carriers' reports (in this case, Notesan filed on August 30, 2002, and ACS filed on September 4, 2002) to ensure that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-358A1.txt
  • February 5, 2003 Released: February 6, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Cedar is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-371A1.txt
  • Adopted: February 6, 2003 Released: February 7, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4092A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4092A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4092A1.txt
  • 23, 2003 Released: December 23, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 21, 2003, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Ketchikan Internet Services (``KIS'') filed an informal complaint against defendant City of Ketchikan, d/b/a Ketchikan Public Utilities (``KPU'') in the above-captioned matter. On May 16, 2003, KPU filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in KIS' Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, KIS must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of KPU's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 21, 2003 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-449A1.txt
  • Released: February 24, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 11, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Qwest Corporation (``Qwest'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. (``C&W'') and U.S. South Communications, Inc. (``U.S. South'') in the above-captioned matter. U.S. South and C&W filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules on July 12, 2002 and July 15, 2002, respectively, denying the allegations in Qwest's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Qwest must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of U.S. South's and C&W's reports to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-478A1.txt
  • Adopted: February 21, 2003 Released: February 24, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-569A1.txt
  • February 26, 2003 Released: February 27, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Cedar is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-67A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-67A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-67A1.txt
  • Released: January 13, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 11, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Qwest Corporation (``Qwest'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. (``C&W'') and U.S. South Communications, Inc. (``U.S. South'') in the above-captioned matter. U.S. South and C&W filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules on July 12, 2002 and July 15, 2002, respectively, denying the allegations in Qwest's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Qwest must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of U.S. South's and C&W's reports to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-787A1.txt
  • Adopted: March 14, 2003 Released: March 17, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-827A1.txt
  • March 19, 2003 Released: March 20, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Cedar is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-836A1.txt
  • Adopted: March 20, 2003 Released: March 21, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1809A1.txt
  • amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the period within which the informal complaint may be converted back to a formal complaint under sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.717-18, shall end sixty (60) days after notice of termination or expiration of the automatic stay in Cable & Wireless' bankruptcy proceedings, unless extended by further order. 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,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2972A1.txt
  • as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the period within which the informal complaint may be converted to a formal complaint under sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.717-18, shall end on March 14, 2005, unless extended by further order. 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 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 1.716-18,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3265A1.txt
  • ACS of Anchorage in the Formal Complaint be converted to an informal complaint. They further request that the filing date of the informal complaint be deemed May 1, 2003, which is the filing date of the Formal Complaint, and that the Commission extend the six-month period within which the informal complaint must be converted to a formal complaint under sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.717-18, to January 31, 2005 (the ``Conversion Date''). Moreover, the parties requested that either of the parties, or the Commission on its own motion, be permitted, upon a showing of good cause, to move for an extension of the Conversion Date. The parties also requested that either party be allowed to re-convert the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3394A1.txt
  • ORDER Adopted: October 26, 2004 Released: October 27, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, MCI is required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of the Defendants' reports (i.e., by October 29, 2004) to ensure that the formal complaints relates back to the May 12, 2004 filing date
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3871A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3871A1.txt
  • ORDER Adopted: December 9, 2004 Released: December 10, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, MCI was required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the May 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.txt
  • selection of a provider of telecommunications service. The new section of the informal complaint rules cross-referenced the Commission's slamming liability rules at part 64, subpart K, and provided that a subscriber unsatisfied with the resolution of an informal slamming complaint had 45 days to file a formal complaint. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 208, 258. Section Number and Title: 1.716 Form. 1.717 Procedure. 1.718 Unsatisfied informal complaints; formal complaints relating back to the filing dates of informal complaints. 1.719 Informal complaints filed pursuant to section 258. Brief Description: These rules set forth many of the procedures that must be followed in order to prosecute and/or defend a formal complaint filed against a common carrier pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-328A1.txt
  • ORDER Adopted: February 7, 2005 Released: February 8, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, MCI was required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-48A1.txt
  • ORDER Adopted: January 10, 2005 Released: January 10, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, MCI was required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-668A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-668A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-668A1.txt
  • ORDER Adopted: March 15, 2005 Released: March 15, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules, MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, MCI was required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3232A1.txt
  • an abbreviation for ``Carrier Identification Code.'' Division Order at 21 FCC Rcd 11217, para. 4; see also 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(d). See Petition at 3. Id. Id. Global argues that, for the matter to be treated as an informal complaint against Global, the Division was required to serve a copy of Complainant's correspondence upon Global pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See Petition at 3 n.6. See Petition at 3. We note that the First Division Letter stated ``Attachment'' at the end of that letter. It is the Division's practice to forward the slamming complaint, along with any responses the Division has received, when it seeks a response to a complaint from another carrier. First Division Letter at 1. See Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-989A1.txt
  • Inquiries and Complaints Division, at (717) 338-2533. -FCC- 47 U.S.C. § 208(a). 47 U.S.C. 208(a) (``a statement of the complaint thus made shall be forwarded by the Commission to such common carrier, who shall be called upon to satisfy the complaint or to answer the same in writing within a reasonable time to be specified by the Commission''); 47 C.F.R. §1.717 (``The carrier will, within such time as may be prescribed, advise the Commission in writing, with a copy to the complainant, of its satisfaction of the complaint or of its refusal or inability to do so.''). Commission practice has established 30 days as the standard period for carrier responses to informal consumer complaints. Id. 47 C.F.R. §1.718. 47 C.F.R. §1.717.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.txt
  • Global Access, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-07-MDIC-0026 NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0006 FRN: 0009838616 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 9, 2008 Released: June 10, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') finds that Global Access, Inc. (``Global Access'' or ``Defendant'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to an informal complaint served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Global Access is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to (i)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2506A1.txt
  • November 28, 2008 By the Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (``Bureau'') and Alltel Communications, LLC d/b/a Alltel Wireless (``Alltel''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Alltel for possible violations of section 1.717 of the Commission's rules regarding Alltel's apparent failure to timely respond to informal consumer complaints. The Bureau and Alltel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2702A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170012 FRN: 0007715915 Adopted: December 24, 2008 Released: December 24, 2008 By the Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (``Bureau'') and Startec Global Operating Company (``Startec''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Startec for possible violations of section 1.717 of the Commission's rules regarding Startec's apparent failure to timely respond to informal consumer complaints. The Bureau and Startec have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2729A1.txt
  • 0007748817 Adopted: December 19, 2008 Released: December 22, 2008 By the Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') and AT&T Inc (``AT&T''). The Consent Decree cancels a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') and terminates a subsequent investigation by the Bureau against AT&T for possible violations of section 1.717 of the Commission's rules regarding AT&T's failure to respond to informal consumer complaints. The Bureau and AT&T have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve these matters. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-416A1.txt
  • Communications, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-07-TC-5001 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170014 FRN: 0009051731 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Blue Casa Communications, Inc. (``Blue Casa'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Blue Casa by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Blue Casa is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-417A1.txt
  • Sprint Nextel Corporation Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1068 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170027 FRN: 0003769890 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Sprint Nextel Corporation (``Sprint Nextel'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Sprint Nextel by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Sprint Nextel is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-418A1.txt
  • Amp'd Mobile, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1063 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170022 FRN: 0014731822 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. (``Amp'd Mobile'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Amp'd Mobile by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Amp'd Mobile is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-419A1.txt
  • Link Systems, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1061 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170017 FRN: 0004364451 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Link Systems, Inc. (``Link Systems'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to one (1) informal complaint served on Link Systems by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Link Systems is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-420A1.txt
  • of Cricket Communications, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1064 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170023 FRN: 0004321139 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Cricket Communications, Inc. (``Cricket'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Cricket by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cricket is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process, administered by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-421A1.txt
  • Cooperative Communications, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1065 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170021 FRN: 0003747409 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Cooperative Communications, Inc. (``Cooperative Communications'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to one (1) informal complaint served on Cooperative Communications by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cooperative Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-422A1.txt
  • Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1067 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170026 FRN: 0005003025 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Reduced Rate Long Distance, LLC (``Reduced Rate Long Distance'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Reduced Rate Long Distance by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Reduced Rate Long Distance is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. BACKGROUND The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-423A1.txt
  • International, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-07-TC-5038 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170016 FRN: 0006807309 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Total Call International, Inc. (``Total Call'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to one (1) informal complaint served on Total Call by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Total Call is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.txt
  • No. EB-07-MDIC-0021 File No. EB-07-MDIC-0025 File No. EB-07-MDIC-0030 File No. EB-07-MDIC-0049 File No. EB-07-MDIC-0055 NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0001 FRN: 0017-4416-35 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') finds that West Star Telecommunications, LLC (``West Star'' or ``Defendant'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules and certain Commission letter orders by failing to respond to six informal complaints served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that West Star is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $24,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.txt
  • of WorldOne Telecommunications Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 NAL/Acct. No. 2008-0329-0004 FRN: 0013-1785-38 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: Feb. 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') finds that WorldOne Telecommunications, LLC (``WorldOne'' or ``Defendant'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to an informal complaint served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that WorldOne is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to (i) allege
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.txt
  • Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-MDIC-0052 NAL/Acct. No. 2008-0329-0003 FRN: 0013-2184-09 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') finds that International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc. (``ITEG'' or ``Defendant'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to an informal complaint served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that ITEG is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to (i) allege
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-427A1.txt
  • the Matter of Alltel Wireless Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1062 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170024 FRN: 0003803483 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Alltel Wireless (``Alltel'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to four (4) informal complaints served on Alltel by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Alltel is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process, administered by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-428A1.txt
  • the Matter of AT&T, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-08-TC-1066 NAL/Acct. No. 200832170025 FRN: 0007748817 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that AT&T, Inc. (``AT&T'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to twenty-four (24) informal complaints served on AT&T by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that AT&T is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $96,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint process, administered by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-MDIC-0047 File No. EB-06-MDIC-0084 File No. EB-07-MDIC-0019 NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0002 FRN: 0006-7006-11 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 6, 2008 Released: March 7, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') finds that Telefyne Inc. (``Telefyne'' or ``Defendant'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to three informal complaints served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telefyne is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $12,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to (i) allege
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.txt
  • for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-07-MDIC-0001 File No. EB-07-MDIC-0027 NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0005 FRN: 0010-4154-04 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 6, 2008 Released: March 7, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') finds that Global Network Communication West, Inc. (``GNCW'' or ``Defendant'') apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two informal complaints served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that GNCW is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. BACKGROUND The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to (i) allege
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.txt
  • Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In the Feb. 18, 2008 NAL, we found that Blue Casa apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two informal complaints served on Blue Casa by the Consumers and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-487A1.txt
  • attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) and Horizon Telecom, Inc. (Horizon) and Reduced Rate Long Distance, LLC (Reduced Rate Long Distance). The Consent Decree terminates the investigation initiated by the Bureau regarding Horizon's compliance with Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), and Sections 1.717, 64.1120, and 64.1130 of the Commission's rules, and finds that the forfeiture proposed in the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture should not be imposed. The Consent Decree also terminates the investigation initiated by the Bureau regarding Reduced Rate Long Distance's compliance with Section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, and finds that the forfeiture proposed in the Notice of Apparent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286624A1.pdf
  • FCC recognizes both formal and informal complaints. 47 C.F.R. § 1.711. Informal complaints are forwarded "to the appropriate carrier for investigation," and the carrier must, "within such time as may be prescribed, advise the Commission in writing, with a copy to the complainant, of its satisfaction of the complaint or of its refusal or inability to do so." Id. § 1.717. If the informal-complaint process proves ineffective, "the complainant may file a formal complaint," and "[s]uch filing will be deemed to relate back to the filing date of the informal complaint" if, inter alia, it "[i]s filed within 6 months from the date of the carrier's report"; but "[i]f no formal complaint is filed within the 6-month period, the complainant will
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-252A1.txt
  • its previous pleadings and rejected in the Liability Order. Accordingly, we see no reason to reconsider our previous conclusion. As we stated in the Liability Order, the explicit language of section 1.718 unambiguously limits the relating-back provision to formal complaints ``filed within 6 months from the date of the carrier's report.'' We find no support for complainants' assertion that ``Section 1.717, . . ., clearly authorizes complainants to await disposition of their informal complaint by the Commission before filing a formal complaint.'' Nothing in section 1.717 or 1.718 can be read to restrict the explicit scope of section 1.718 in the way proffered by complainants. Indeed, complainants' argument disregards the fact that the Commission is not required to notify each complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-183A1.txt
  • dated February 15, 2002. All of the complainants listed in Appendix A have signed declarations. Complaint dated August 31, 2001, from Mark and Bernadette Mercurio, filed with the FCC. Declaration dated May 7, 2002, from Bernadette and Mark Mercurio. Complaint dated August 27, 2001, from Edward Kwiatkowski. Declaration dated May 6, 2002, from Edward Kwiatkowski. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 1.717 for the Commission's procedures regarding informal complaints. See WebNet response tapes for the complaints of Martha Carton, Emery Johnson, and Ninnette King filed with the State of Maine. The tape that WebNet filed with the Illinois Attorney General contained identical verification text. See WebNet response tape for the complaint of Robert Schwarzlose, filed with the State of Illinois. Although we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-314A1.txt
  • 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963)); American International Development, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 86 FCC 2d 808, 815, ¶ 17 (1981) (noting that the existence of corroborative evidence is a factor to be considered in weighing the evidence presented). See also Contemporary Media, Inc., Decision, 13 FCC Rcd 14,437, 14,457, ¶ 39 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716, 1.717, and 1.718. The informal complaint letters are dated September 15, 1997, are printed on ITC's stationery, and include the name of ITC's president, William J. Nelson. We find credible the affidavit of Pamela S. Wickham, ITC's office manager during the time period at issue, that it was the company's customary practice to send letters out on the date they were
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-46A1.txt
  • or our rules and orders. Our goal in this proceeding is to consolidate and streamline our consumer complaint mechanisms for consumers to use when submitting informal complaints to the Commission. We propose to establish a consumer complaint mechanism patterned after our existing rules for informal complaints filed against common carriers pursuant to Section 208 of the Act contained in Sections 1.717-1.718 of the Commission's rules. We also invite comment on whether we should make changes to our existing informal common carrier complaint rules. The Section 208 informal complaint rules emphasize ease of filing by consumers and voluntary cooperative efforts by consumers and affected companies to resolve their differences informally. Consumers and carriers have benefited substantially from these rules over the years.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.txt
  • (both holding that Network, and not the Debit Card Providers, are liable to APCC). To the extent that Network is referring to APCC's failure to sue Network until September 30, 2002, the two-year statute of limitations in section 415(b) of the Act adequately addresses any concerns arising from the timing of APCC's action. 47 C.F.R. § 1.716. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.47(h) (emphasis added). 47 C.F.R. § 1.47(d). See, e.g., March 2002 Informal Complaint; Damages Joint Statement at 6; APCC Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Complainants' Initial Brief on Issues Designated by the Commission's June 21, 2005 Letter Ruling, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed July 1, 2005) (``Complainants' Initial Brief on Service''), Attachment 10
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-255A1.txt
  • Commission has noted that ``good business practices will necessitate that video programming distributors maintain records in order to ensure compliance with our rules, as well as to defend against possible consumer complaints.'' Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3383, para. 244. Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3381, para. 240. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.717 & 64.604(v)(B)(1). The new or modified information requirements for section 79.1(g), as described above, are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and therefore require the approval by the Office of Management and Budget. Accordingly, these requirements will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register of a notice announcing OMB's approval of this collection. TDI Petition at 12-16. 2005 Closed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-70A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-70A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-70A1.txt
  • 0009704925 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 29, 2008 Released: February 29, 2008 By the Commission: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Horizon Telecom, Inc. (``Horizon'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), and sections 1.717, 64.1120, and 64.1130 of the Commission's rules. As discussed in more detail herein, Horizon has apparently willfully or repeatedly failed to respond on a timely basis to twenty-one (21) informal complaints served on it by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB''). In addition, it apparently changed the preferred carriers of one hundred twenty-five (125) consumers without proper authorization, a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-93A1.txt
  • alleged lack of compliance. See Improving Agency Disclosure of Information, Executive Order No. 13392, 70 Fed. Reg. 75373 (Dec. 14, 2005). In any case, that order was intended to improve the internal management of the government and did not create any substantive or procedural rights in favor of any private party. Id. at 75376-77 § 7(b)(iii). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See id. See note 2, supra. See AFR, Exh. A at 1-2. The items are: (1) - (7) and (9). See note 5, supra. See AFR, Exh. A at 1-2. The items are (8) and (10). The two unanswered complaints have been referred to the Commission's Enforcement Bureau for further investigation. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). See Prof Bill Neill, 18
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.wp
  • Companies' billing agents. 16 The Commission has established rules and procedures that enable consumers to bring to the Commission's attention allegations of misconduct by carriers and to obtain relief from rates and practices found to be unlawful or otherwise contrary to the public interest. See 47 U.S.C. § 208; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716- 1.718. 17 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. Section 1.717 provides in pertinent part: [T]he Commission will forward informal complaints to the appropriate carrier for investigation. The carrier will, within such time as may be prescribed, advise the Commission in writing, with a copy to the complainant, of its 4 verification procedures before submitting PIC-change requests to LECs on behalf of consumers.12 3. Most of the complaints detail
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.wp
  • the subject of such a complaint that shows service or is a formal complaint under 47 U.S.C. 208 and 1.721 or 47 U.S.C. 255 and either 6.17 and 7.17. (3) 1.1204(b)(5) of Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended to read as follows: (5) An informal complaint proceeding under 47 U.S.C. 208 and 1.717 or 47 U.S.C. 255 and either 6.17 or 7.17; and Authority: 47 U.S.C. Section 1, 154(i), 154(j) 208, 255 Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-181 APPENDIX C LIST OF COMMENTERS Comments Abols, Bonnie (Warwick RI) (Ocean State Center for Independent Living) Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago Access to Independence and Mobility [AIM] AirTouch Communications, Inc. [AirTouch] American Council of the Blind
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210069-1.pdf
  • and to resolve the complainant's dispute. It is unlikely that the resultingllinformal progress reports" generated under this severe time constraint will be of any significant use to either the Commission or the parties. Extending the deadline for such reporting to fifteen business days (which approximates the period normally allowed by the Commission for responding to other informal complaints under Section 1.717) will permit a 21 To assure that respondents can address "fast-track" complaints expeditiously,the Commission should allow manufacturers and service providers to designate different contact points within those companies for different product or service offerings, provided that the contact points'responsibilities are stated with sufficient specificity to allow the Commission accurately to refer Nfast-trackn complaints. See NPRM, 11 132-134. The contact lists
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210099-1.pdf
  • complaints. Finally,the Commission's Section 255 complaint process must include general principles of finality. A reasonable statute of limitations, e.g. two years, should apply to all Section 255 complaints. Additionally,the Commission should impose Section 1.718 of its rules to ensure that a complainant, unsatisfied with the results of an informal complaint,is required to file a formal I7/ See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.717. Although the section does not specify a 30-day response period, this is the time within which the Commission typically requires a response. -11- complaint within six months of the informal complaint resolution.=/ Carriers andmanufacturers must have some assurance that a particular proceeding has reached its conclusion. The uncertainty associated with anopen-ended proceeding could stifle a carrier's/manufacturer's ability to move forward
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012158.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012158.html
  • Inc., Fairpoint Communications Corp., Focal Communications Corp., Intermedia Communications, Inc., Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC, North County Communications Corp., Winstar Communications, Inc., et al., and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T is required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints relate back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. In light of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012159.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012159.html
  • ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0016 ORDER Adopted: September 14, 2001 Released: September 14, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of our rules, Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (``Sprint'') filed an informal complaint against CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC''). On March 22, 2001, CTC filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in Sprint's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Sprint is required to convert these informal complaints into a formal complaint on or before September 22, 2001, to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint. In light of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012428.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012428.pdf
  • Inc., Fairpoint Communications Corp., Focal Communications Corp., Intermedia Communications, Inc., Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC, North County Communications Corp., Winstar Communications, Inc., et al., and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012551.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012551.pdf
  • (``Focal''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1065A1.html
  • Adopted: May 7, 2002 Released: May 8, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above- captioned matter. On March 16, 2001, CTC Telcom filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of CTC Telcom's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2070A1.html
  • 27, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 9, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 CTC Communications Corp. (``CTC'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Verizon New England, Inc. and Verizon New York, Inc. (collectively ``Verizon'') in the above-captioned matter. On February 27, 2002, Verizon filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in CTC's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 CTC was required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of Verizon's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 9, 2002, filing date of the informal complaint. Since
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-210A1.html
  • (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2204A1.html
  • section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., Independent Networks Co., Mark Twain Communications Company, and Northern Valley Communications, LLC (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs''), filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the November and December, 2001 and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2340A1.html
  • December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., and Independent Networks Co. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above- captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2552A1.html
  • December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., and Independent Networks Co. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above- captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2758A1.html
  • In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above- captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3013A1.html
  • 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3182A1.html
  • 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3305A1.html
  • 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3414A1.html
  • 1.716 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716.5 In addition to this request, the parties asked that the filing date of the informal complaint be deemed September 5, 2002, which is the filing date of the formal complaint, and that the Commission extend the six-month period within which the informal complaint must be converted to a formal complaint under sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717-18, to November 1, 2003 (the ``Conversion Date'').6 Moreover, the parties requested that either party or the Commission on its own motion may, upon a showing of good cause, move for an extension of the Conversion Date. The parties also requested that the Commission waive those portions of sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's rules,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3442A1.html
  • described in the documents filed by DDA in this matter.5 Both SBC and Verizon responded to DDA's informal complaint on June 15, 2001.6 Commission staff closed that proceeding no later than March 21, 2002, when Commission staff notified DDA in writing that ``the Consumer Information Bureau has closed the file on the above referenced informal complaint, in accordance with Section 1.717 of the Commission's Rules.''7 4. Under the Commission's rules, if DDA was dissatisfied with either the defendants' responses or the Commission's closure of the informal complaint proceeding, DDA's remedy was to timely file a formal complaint, not to file an application for review.8 Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that DDA could have properly filed an application for review, DDA failed to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3467A1.html
  • 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3492A1.html
  • 18, 2002 Released: December 20, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-34A1.html
  • (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
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-35A1.html
  • (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-360A1.html
  • (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-450A1.html
  • 26, 2002 Released: February 27, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-597A1.html
  • 12, 2002 Released: March 13, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-721A1.html
  • 26, 2002 Released: March 27, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-822A1.html
  • 10, 2002 Released: April 11, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-960A1.html
  • Adopted: April 25, 2002 Released: April 26, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above- captioned matter. On March 16, 2001, CTC Telcom filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of CTC Telcom's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-183A1.html
  • All of the complainants listed in Appendix A have signed declarations. 10 Complaint dated August 31, 2001, from Mark and Bernadette Mercurio, filed with the FCC. 11 Declaration dated May 7, 2002, from Bernadette and Mark Mercurio. 12 Complaint dated August 27, 2001, from Edward Kwiatkowski. 13 Declaration dated May 6, 2002, from Edward Kwiatkowski. 14 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.717 for the Commission's procedures regarding informal complaints. 15 See WebNet response tapes for the complaints of Martha Carton, Emery Johnson, and Ninnette King filed with the State of Maine. The tape that WebNet filed with the Illinois Attorney General contained identical verification text. See WebNet response tape for the complaint of Robert Schwarzlose, filed with the State of Illinois. Although
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-314A1.html
  • v. U.S., 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963)); American International Development, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 86 FCC 2d 808, 815, 17 (1981) (noting that the existence of corroborative evidence is a factor to be considered in weighing the evidence presented). See also Contemporary Media, Inc., Decision, 13 FCC Rcd 14,437, 14,457, 39 (1998). 199 See 47 C.F.R. 1.716, 1.717, and 1.718. 200 The informal complaint letters are dated September 15, 1997, are printed on ITC's stationery, and include the name of ITC's president, William J. Nelson. We find credible the affidavit of Pamela S. Wickham, ITC's office manager during the time period at issue, that it was the company's customary practice to send letters out on the date they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1083A1.html
  • Adopted: April 3, 2003 Released: April 4, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1174A1.html
  • Adopted: April 17, 2003 Released: April 21, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-170A1.html
  • 2001 and April 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002 and July 19, 2002, AT&T filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1900A1.html
  • 47 C.F.R. 1.711-1.718. Notesan's informal complaint alleges, inter alia, that ACS has obtained de facto control of certain licensed facilities owned by Neptune, in violation of section 214 of the Act and section 1.767 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. 214; 47 C.F.R. 1.767. As of this date, Neptune and ACS have responded to the informal complaint pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717, but WCI has not. 2. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 Notesan originally had to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of the defendant carriers' reports (in this case, Notesan filed on August 30, 2002, and ACS filed on September 4, 2002) to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-207A1.html
  • Adopted: January 27, 2003 Released: January 28, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-22A1.html
  • Adopted: January 7, 2003 Released: January 8, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-351A1.html
  • 47 C.F.R. 1.711-1.718. Notesan's informal complaint alleges, inter alia, that ACS has obtained de facto control of certain licensed facilities owned by Neptune, in violation of section 214 of the Act and section 1.767 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. 214; 47 C.F.R. 1.767. As of this date, Neptune and ACS have responded to the informal complaint pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717, but WCI has not. 2. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 Notesan must convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of the defendant carriers' reports (in this case, Notesan filed on August 30, 2002, and ACS filed on September 4, 2002) to ensure that,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-358A1.html
  • 5, 2003 Released: February 6, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-371A1.html
  • Adopted: February 6, 2003 Released: February 7, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4092A1.html
  • 23, 2003 Released: December 23, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 21, 2003, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Ketchikan Internet Services (``KIS'') filed an informal complaint against defendant City of Ketchikan, d/b/a Ketchikan Public Utilities (``KPU'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On May 16, 2003, KPU filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in KIS' Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 KIS must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of KPU's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 21, 2003 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-449A1.html
  • February 24, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 11, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Qwest Corporation (``Qwest'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. (``C&W'') and U.S. South Communications, Inc. (``U.S. South'') in the above- captioned matter.2 U.S. South and C&W filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 on July 12, 2002 and July 15, 2002, respectively, denying the allegations in Qwest's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 Qwest must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of U.S. South's and C&W's reports to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-478A1.html
  • Adopted: February 21, 2003 Released: February 24, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-569A1.html
  • 26, 2003 Released: February 27, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-67A1.html
  • January 13, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 11, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Qwest Corporation (``Qwest'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. (``C&W'') and U.S. South Communications, Inc. (``U.S. South'') in the above- captioned matter.2 U.S. South and C&W filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 on July 12, 2002 and July 15, 2002, respectively, denying the allegations in Qwest's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 Qwest must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of U.S. South's and C&W's reports to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-787A1.html
  • Adopted: March 14, 2003 Released: March 17, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-827A1.html
  • 19, 2003 Released: March 20, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-836A1.html
  • Adopted: March 20, 2003 Released: March 21, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1809A1.html
  • 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716- 18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the period within which the informal complaint may be converted back to a formal complaint under sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717-18, shall end sixty (60) days after notice of termination or expiration of the automatic stay in Cable & Wireless' bankruptcy proceedings, unless extended by further order. 11. 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
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2972A1.html
  • Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the period within which the informal complaint may be converted to a formal complaint under sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717-18, shall end on March 14, 2005, unless extended by further order. 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 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3265A1.html
  • ACS of Anchorage in the Formal Complaint be converted to an informal complaint. They further request that the filing date of the informal complaint be deemed May 1, 2003, which is the filing date of the Formal Complaint, and that the Commission extend the six-month period within which the informal complaint must be converted to a formal complaint under sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717-18, to January 31, 2005 (the ``Conversion Date'').9 Moreover, the parties requested that either of the parties, or the Commission on its own motion, be permitted, upon a showing of good cause, to move for an extension of the Conversion Date. The parties also requested that either party be allowed to re- convert the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3394A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: October 26, 2004 Released: October 27, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI is required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of the Defendants' reports (i.e., by October 29, 2004) to ensure that the formal complaints relates back to the May 12, 2004 filing date
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3871A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: December 9, 2004 Released: December 10, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI was required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the May 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-328A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: February 7, 2005 Released: February 8, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI was required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-48A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: January 10, 2005 Released: January 10, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI was required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-668A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: March 15, 2005 Released: March 15, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,4 MCI was required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-14A1.html
  • (both holding that Network, and not the Debit Card Providers, are liable to APCC). To the extent that Network is referring to APCC's failure to sue Network until September 30, 2002, the two-year statute of limitations in section 415(b) of the Act adequately addresses any concerns arising from the timing of APCC's action. 47 C.F.R. S 1.716. 47 C.F.R. S 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S 1.47(h) (emphasis added). 47 C.F.R. S 1.47(d). See, e.g., March 2002 Informal Complaint; Damages Joint Statement at 6; APCC Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Complainants' Initial Brief on Issues Designated by the Commission's June 21, 2005 Letter Ruling, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed July 1, 2005) ("Complainants' Initial Brief on Service"), Attachment 10
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1366A1.html
  • File No. EB-07-MDIC-0026 Global Access, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0006 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0009838616 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 9, 2008 Released: June 10, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") finds that Global Access, Inc. ("Global Access" or "Defendant") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to an informal complaint served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Global Access is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2506A1.html
  • 28, 2008 By the Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission ("Bureau") and Alltel Communications, LLC d/b/a Alltel Wireless ("Alltel"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Alltel for possible violations of section 1.717 of the Commission's rules regarding Alltel's apparent failure to timely respond to informal consumer complaints. 2. The Bureau and Alltel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2702A1.html
  • FRN: 0007715915 ) ORDER Adopted: December 24, 2008 Released: December 24, 2008 By the Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission ("Bureau") and Startec Global Operating Company ("Startec"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Startec for possible violations of section 1.717 of the Commission's rules regarding Startec's apparent failure to timely respond to informal consumer complaints. 2. The Bureau and Startec have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2729A1.html
  • Adopted: December 19, 2008 Released: December 22, 2008 By the Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") and AT&T Inc ("AT&T"). The Consent Decree cancels a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") and terminates a subsequent investigation by the Bureau against AT&T for possible violations of section 1.717 of the Commission's rules regarding AT&T's failure to respond to informal consumer complaints. 2. The Bureau and AT&T have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve these matters. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-416A1.html
  • EB-07-TC-5001 Blue Casa Communications, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170014 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0009051731 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Blue Casa Communications, Inc. ("Blue Casa") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Blue Casa by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Blue Casa is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-417A1.html
  • File No. EB-08-TC-1068 Sprint Nextel Corporation ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170027 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0003769890 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Sprint Nextel by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Sprint Nextel is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-418A1.html
  • File No. EB-08-TC-1063 Amp'd Mobile, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170022 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0014731822 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. ("Amp'd Mobile") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Amp'd Mobile by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Amp'd Mobile is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-419A1.html
  • File No. EB-08-TC-1061 Link Systems, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170017 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004364451 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Link Systems, Inc. ("Link Systems") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to one (1) informal complaint served on Link Systems by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Link Systems is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-420A1.html
  • ) File No. EB-08-TC-1064 Cricket Communications, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170023 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004321139 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Cricket Communications, Inc. ("Cricket") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Cricket by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cricket is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-421A1.html
  • File No. EB-08-TC-1065 Cooperative Communications, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170021 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0003747409 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Cooperative Communications, Inc. ("Cooperative Communications") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to one (1) informal complaint served on Cooperative Communications by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cooperative Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-422A1.html
  • Distance, LLC ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170026 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0005003025 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Reduced Rate Long Distance, LLC ("Reduced Rate Long Distance") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Reduced Rate Long Distance by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Reduced Rate Long Distance is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. II. BACKGROUND
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-423A1.html
  • EB-07-TC-5038 Total Call International, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170016 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0006807309 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Total Call International, Inc. ("Total Call") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to one (1) informal complaint served on Total Call by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Total Call is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-424A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) File No. EB-07-MDIC-0055 ) NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0001 ) FRN: 0017-4416-35 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") finds that West Star Telecommunications, LLC ("West Star" or "Defendant") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules and certain Commission letter orders by failing to respond to six informal complaints served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that West Star is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $24,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint rules
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-425A1.html
  • of File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 ) WorldOne Telecommunications NAL/Acct. No. 2008-0329-0004 ) Apparent Liability for Forfeiture FRN: 0013-1785-38 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: Feb. 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") finds that WorldOne Telecommunications, LLC ("WorldOne" or "Defendant") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to an informal complaint served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that WorldOne is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-426A1.html
  • Telecom Exchange ) Group, Inc. NAL/Acct. No. 2008-0329-0003 ) Apparent Liability for Forfeiture FRN: 0013-2184-09 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") finds that International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc. ("ITEG" or "Defendant") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to an informal complaint served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that ITEG is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-427A1.html
  • Matter of ) File No. EB-08-TC-1062 Alltel Wireless ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170024 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0003803483 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Alltel Wireless ("Alltel") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to four (4) informal complaints served on Alltel by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Alltel is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-428A1.html
  • Matter of ) File No. EB-08-TC-1066 AT&T, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170025 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0007748817 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that AT&T, Inc. ("AT&T") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to twenty-four (24) informal complaints served on AT&T by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that AT&T is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $96,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-525A1.html
  • EB-06-MDIC-0084 ) Telefyne Inc. File No. EB-07-MDIC-0019 ) Apparent Liability for Forfeiture NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0002 ) FRN: 0006-7006-11 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 6, 2008 Released: March 7, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") finds that Telefyne Inc. ("Telefyne" or "Defendant") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to three informal complaints served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telefyne is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $12,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-526A1.html
  • ) File No. EB-07-MDIC-0027 Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0005 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0010-4154-04 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 6, 2008 Released: March 7, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") finds that Global Network Communication West, Inc. ("GNCW" or "Defendant") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two informal complaints served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that GNCW is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-70A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 29, 2008 Released: February 29, 2008 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Horizon Telecom, Inc. ("Horizon" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), and sections 1.717, 64.1120, and 64.1130 of the Commission's rules. As discussed in more detail herein, Horizon has apparently willfully or repeatedly failed to respond on a timely basis to twenty-one (21) informal complaints served on it by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). In addition, it apparently changed the preferred carriers of one hundred twenty-five (125) consumers without proper authorization, a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1710A1.html
  • EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In the Feb. 18, 2008 NAL, we found that Blue Casa apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two informal complaints served on Blue Casa by the Consumers and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 4. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-487A1.html
  • attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) and Horizon Telecom, Inc. (Horizon) and Reduced Rate Long Distance, LLC (Reduced Rate Long Distance). The Consent Decree terminates the investigation initiated by the Bureau regarding Horizon's compliance with Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), and Sections 1.717, 64.1120, and 64.1130 of the Commission's rules, and finds that the forfeiture proposed in the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture should not be imposed. The Consent Decree also terminates the investigation initiated by the Bureau regarding Reduced Rate Long Distance's compliance with Section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, and finds that the forfeiture proposed in the Notice of Apparent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00252.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00252.txt
  • its previous pleadings and rejected in the Liability Order. Accordingly, we see no reason to reconsider our previous conclusion. As we stated in the Liability Order, the explicit language of section 1.718 unambiguously limits the relating-back provision to formal complaints ``filed within 6 months from the date of the carrier's report.'' We find no support for complainants' assertion that ``Section 1.717, . . ., clearly authorizes complainants to await disposition of their informal complaint by the Commission before filing a formal complaint.'' Nothing in section 1.717 or 1.718 can be read to restrict the explicit scope of section 1.718 in the way proffered by complainants. Indeed, complainants' argument disregards the fact that the Commission is not required to notify each complainant
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.wp
  • Companies' billing agents. 16 The Commission has established rules and procedures that enable consumers to bring to the Commission's attention allegations of misconduct by carriers and to obtain relief from rates and practices found to be unlawful or otherwise contrary to the public interest. See 47 U.S.C. § 208; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716- 1.718. 17 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. Section 1.717 provides in pertinent part: [T]he Commission will forward informal complaints to the appropriate carrier for investigation. The carrier will, within such time as may be prescribed, advise the Commission in writing, with a copy to the complainant, of its 4 verification procedures before submitting PIC-change requests to LECs on behalf of consumers.12 3. Most of the complaints detail
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da991878.doc
  • a forfeiture against any person found to have willfully or repeatedly violated any provision of the Act or any Commission rule, regulation, or order. . 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 the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.717, and 1.718 et seq. of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.717, and 1.718 et seq., that the informal request from JMJ Associates, Inc. for reconsideration of the February 6, 1998 letter ruling of the Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Acting Assistant Chief, Enforcement Division Common Carrier Bureau See
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.wp
  • the subject of such a complaint that shows service or is a formal complaint under 47 U.S.C. 208 and 1.721 or 47 U.S.C. 255 and either 6.17 and 7.17. (3) 1.1204(b)(5) of Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended to read as follows: (5) An informal complaint proceeding under 47 U.S.C. 208 and 1.717 or 47 U.S.C. 255 and either 6.17 or 7.17; and Authority: 47 U.S.C. Section 1, 154(i), 154(j) 208, 255 Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-181 APPENDIX C LIST OF COMMENTERS Comments Abols, Bonnie (Warwick RI) (Ocean State Center for Independent Living) Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago Access to Independence and Mobility [AIM] AirTouch Communications, Inc. [AirTouch] American Council of the Blind
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-f00.pdf
  • United States Billed Percent share by carrier Receipts Percent share by carrier Receipts Percent share by carrier Total Percent share by carrier revenues 1 2 3 4 Other from PTT 1 2 3 4 Other from PTT 1 2 3 4 Other Minutes 1 2 3 4 Other Eastern Europe $503,860,52132.350.6 2.6 8.1 6.5 $23,511,02750.129.4 0.0 7.113.3 $14,891,05972.8 8.5 0.0 1.717.1 1,042,491,35236.826.9 1.213.421.7 Antarctica $9710.3 0.0 1.0 0.088.7 $18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $0 1,072 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.099.3 Maritime - Atlantic $2,704,327 7.983.7 4.2 0.0 4.3 $76,384 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $23,877100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 646,716 8.981.3 1.2 0.0 8.7 Maritime - other oceans $725,794 0.041.3 1.643.313.8 $5,434 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.099.0 $0 201,149 0.046.1 0.544.6 8.8 Maritime -
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-f99.pdf
  • 1.3 2.6 4.7 Netherlands $134,875,08347.432.710.0 1.1 8.7 $8,722,62239.141.0 7.8 0.311.8 $18,831,74271.6 2.4 0.025.9 0.0 444,997,06334.528.710.5 5.920.4 Norway $39,040,51955.732.4 7.1 0.7 4.1 $3,593,67040.631.6 7.5 0.020.3 $2,381,09597.5 0.3 2.2 0.0 0.0 122,907,95540.030.5 8.7 3.916.9 Portugal $53,472,82851.136.1 7.7 0.6 4.4 $2,906,64853.029.017.8 0.0 0.2 $891,44365.034.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 106,664,11948.126.916.7 1.9 6.4 Spain $207,169,79348.537.4 7.1 0.4 6.5 $8,703,95547.523.710.6 0.018.2 $4,138,05994.9 4.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 414,251,58138.827.514.6 1.717.4 Sweden $68,631,92258.427.5 8.3 1.2 4.5 $7,533,59226.235.311.2 0.227.1 $13,587,11526.1 1.8 0.072.0 0.0 318,637,46033.232.810.5 5.717.9 Switzerland $102,743,85661.525.4 8.8 1.5 2.8 $10,128,47839.843.111.6 0.0 5.4 $1,457,35961.127.511.3 0.0 0.1 321,862,06134.929.412.117.4 6.2 Turkey $132,347,26431.749.8 8.8 4.5 5.2 $9,916,07837.949.011.6 0.0 1.5 $480,956 7.888.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 268,175,72128.035.915.1 8.712.3 United Kingdom $691,750,11056.523.711.8 4.1 3.8 $89,690,40138.043.613.7 0.8 3.9 $45,733,53418.2 5.8 5.870.1 0.2 2,787,946,14849.920.416.1 2.211.4 Western Europe $3,027,872,07853.031.3 9.3 1.9
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210069-1.pdf
  • and to resolve the complainant's dispute. It is unlikely that the resultingllinformal progress reports" generated under this severe time constraint will be of any significant use to either the Commission or the parties. Extending the deadline for such reporting to fifteen business days (which approximates the period normally allowed by the Commission for responding to other informal complaints under Section 1.717) will permit a 21 To assure that respondents can address "fast-track" complaints expeditiously,the Commission should allow manufacturers and service providers to designate different contact points within those companies for different product or service offerings, provided that the contact points'responsibilities are stated with sufficient specificity to allow the Commission accurately to refer Nfast-trackn complaints. See NPRM, 11 132-134. The contact lists
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210099-1.pdf
  • complaints. Finally,the Commission's Section 255 complaint process must include general principles of finality. A reasonable statute of limitations, e.g. two years, should apply to all Section 255 complaints. Additionally,the Commission should impose Section 1.718 of its rules to ensure that a complainant, unsatisfied with the results of an informal complaint,is required to file a formal I7/ See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.717. Although the section does not specify a 30-day response period, this is the time within which the Commission typically requires a response. -11- complaint within six months of the informal complaint resolution.=/ Carriers andmanufacturers must have some assurance that a particular proceeding has reached its conclusion. The uncertainty associated with anopen-ended proceeding could stifle a carrier's/manufacturer's ability to move forward
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012158.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012158.html
  • Inc., Fairpoint Communications Corp., Focal Communications Corp., Intermedia Communications, Inc., Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC, North County Communications Corp., Winstar Communications, Inc., et al., and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, AT&T is required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints relate back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. In light of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012159.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012159.html
  • ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MDIC-0016 ORDER Adopted: September 14, 2001 Released: September 14, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of our rules, Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (``Sprint'') filed an informal complaint against CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC''). On March 22, 2001, CTC filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules denying the allegations in Sprint's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, Sprint is required to convert these informal complaints into a formal complaint on or before September 22, 2001, to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint. In light of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012428.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012428.pdf
  • Inc., Fairpoint Communications Corp., Focal Communications Corp., Intermedia Communications, Inc., Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC, North County Communications Corp., Winstar Communications, Inc., et al., and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012551.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012551.pdf
  • (``Focal''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1065A1.html
  • Adopted: May 7, 2002 Released: May 8, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above- captioned matter. On March 16, 2001, CTC Telcom filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of CTC Telcom's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2070A1.html
  • 27, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 9, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 CTC Communications Corp. (``CTC'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Verizon New England, Inc. and Verizon New York, Inc. (collectively ``Verizon'') in the above-captioned matter. On February 27, 2002, Verizon filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in CTC's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 CTC was required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of Verizon's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 9, 2002, filing date of the informal complaint. Since
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-210A1.html
  • (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2204A1.html
  • section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., Independent Networks Co., Mark Twain Communications Company, and Northern Valley Communications, LLC (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs''), filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the November and December, 2001 and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2340A1.html
  • December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., and Independent Networks Co. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above- captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2552A1.html
  • December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc., and Independent Networks Co. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above- captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2758A1.html
  • In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above- captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3013A1.html
  • 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3182A1.html
  • 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3305A1.html
  • 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3414A1.html
  • 1.716 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.716.5 In addition to this request, the parties asked that the filing date of the informal complaint be deemed September 5, 2002, which is the filing date of the formal complaint, and that the Commission extend the six-month period within which the informal complaint must be converted to a formal complaint under sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717-18, to November 1, 2003 (the ``Conversion Date'').6 Moreover, the parties requested that either party or the Commission on its own motion may, upon a showing of good cause, move for an extension of the Conversion Date. The parties also requested that the Commission waive those portions of sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's rules,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3442A1.html
  • described in the documents filed by DDA in this matter.5 Both SBC and Verizon responded to DDA's informal complaint on June 15, 2001.6 Commission staff closed that proceeding no later than March 21, 2002, when Commission staff notified DDA in writing that ``the Consumer Information Bureau has closed the file on the above referenced informal complaint, in accordance with Section 1.717 of the Commission's Rules.''7 4. Under the Commission's rules, if DDA was dissatisfied with either the defendants' responses or the Commission's closure of the informal complaint proceeding, DDA's remedy was to timely file a formal complaint, not to file an application for review.8 Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that DDA could have properly filed an application for review, DDA failed to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3467A1.html
  • 1. In November and December 2001 and January 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Heart of Iowa Communications, Inc. (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3492A1.html
  • 18, 2002 Released: December 20, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-34A1.html
  • (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
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-35A1.html
  • (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-360A1.html
  • (``Fairpoint''), Intermedia Communications, Inc. (``Intermedia''), Net2000 Communications, Net2000 Communications Services and Net2000 Communications of Virginia, LLC (``Net200''), North County Communications Corp. (``North County''), Winstar Communications, Inc., et al. (``Winstar''), and XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (``XIT'') (collectively ``Informal Complaint Defendants''). Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the Informal Complaint Defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-450A1.html
  • 26, 2002 Released: February 27, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-597A1.html
  • 12, 2002 Released: March 13, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-721A1.html
  • 26, 2002 Released: March 27, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-822A1.html
  • 10, 2002 Released: April 11, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed informal complaints against each of the defendants in the above-captioned matters. Between March 14, 2001 and March 19, 2001, each of the defendants filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert these informal complaints into formal complaints between September 14, 2001 and September 24, 2001 to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaints. On September 14,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-960A1.html
  • Adopted: April 25, 2002 Released: April 26, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 12, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') filed an informal complaint against defendant CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC Telcom'') in the above- captioned matter. On March 16, 2001, CTC Telcom filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in AT&T's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 AT&T was required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of CTC Telcom's report to ensure that the formal complaint related back to the January 12, 2001 filing date of the informal complaint.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-183A1.html
  • All of the complainants listed in Appendix A have signed declarations. 10 Complaint dated August 31, 2001, from Mark and Bernadette Mercurio, filed with the FCC. 11 Declaration dated May 7, 2002, from Bernadette and Mark Mercurio. 12 Complaint dated August 27, 2001, from Edward Kwiatkowski. 13 Declaration dated May 6, 2002, from Edward Kwiatkowski. 14 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.717 for the Commission's procedures regarding informal complaints. 15 See WebNet response tapes for the complaints of Martha Carton, Emery Johnson, and Ninnette King filed with the State of Maine. The tape that WebNet filed with the Illinois Attorney General contained identical verification text. See WebNet response tape for the complaint of Robert Schwarzlose, filed with the State of Illinois. Although
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-314A1.html
  • v. U.S., 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963)); American International Development, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 86 FCC 2d 808, 815, 17 (1981) (noting that the existence of corroborative evidence is a factor to be considered in weighing the evidence presented). See also Contemporary Media, Inc., Decision, 13 FCC Rcd 14,437, 14,457, 39 (1998). 199 See 47 C.F.R. 1.716, 1.717, and 1.718. 200 The informal complaint letters are dated September 15, 1997, are printed on ITC's stationery, and include the name of ITC's president, William J. Nelson. We find credible the affidavit of Pamela S. Wickham, ITC's office manager during the time period at issue, that it was the company's customary practice to send letters out on the date they
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1083A1.html
  • Adopted: April 3, 2003 Released: April 4, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1174A1.html
  • Adopted: April 17, 2003 Released: April 21, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-170A1.html
  • 2001 and April 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Co., Forest City Telecom, Inc., and Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (collectively ``Informal Complaint Plaintiffs'') filed informal complaints against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matters. On March 11, 2002 and July 19, 2002, AT&T filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs' informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 the Informal Complaint Plaintiffs were required to convert their informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaints related back to the November and December 2001 and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1900A1.html
  • 47 C.F.R. 1.711-1.718. Notesan's informal complaint alleges, inter alia, that ACS has obtained de facto control of certain licensed facilities owned by Neptune, in violation of section 214 of the Act and section 1.767 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. 214; 47 C.F.R. 1.767. As of this date, Neptune and ACS have responded to the informal complaint pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717, but WCI has not. 2. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 Notesan originally had to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of the defendant carriers' reports (in this case, Notesan filed on August 30, 2002, and ACS filed on September 4, 2002) to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-207A1.html
  • Adopted: January 27, 2003 Released: January 28, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-22A1.html
  • Adopted: January 7, 2003 Released: January 8, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-351A1.html
  • 47 C.F.R. 1.711-1.718. Notesan's informal complaint alleges, inter alia, that ACS has obtained de facto control of certain licensed facilities owned by Neptune, in violation of section 214 of the Act and section 1.767 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. 214; 47 C.F.R. 1.767. As of this date, Neptune and ACS have responded to the informal complaint pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717, but WCI has not. 2. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,1 Notesan must convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of the defendant carriers' reports (in this case, Notesan filed on August 30, 2002, and ACS filed on September 4, 2002) to ensure that,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-358A1.html
  • 5, 2003 Released: February 6, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-371A1.html
  • Adopted: February 6, 2003 Released: February 7, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4092A1.html
  • 23, 2003 Released: December 23, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 21, 2003, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Ketchikan Internet Services (``KIS'') filed an informal complaint against defendant City of Ketchikan, d/b/a Ketchikan Public Utilities (``KPU'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On May 16, 2003, KPU filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in KIS' Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 KIS must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of KPU's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 21, 2003 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-449A1.html
  • February 24, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 11, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Qwest Corporation (``Qwest'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. (``C&W'') and U.S. South Communications, Inc. (``U.S. South'') in the above- captioned matter.2 U.S. South and C&W filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 on July 12, 2002 and July 15, 2002, respectively, denying the allegations in Qwest's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 Qwest must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of U.S. South's and C&W's reports to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-478A1.html
  • Adopted: February 21, 2003 Released: February 24, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-569A1.html
  • 26, 2003 Released: February 27, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-67A1.html
  • January 13, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On June 11, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Qwest Corporation (``Qwest'') filed an informal complaint against defendants Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. (``C&W'') and U.S. South Communications, Inc. (``U.S. South'') in the above- captioned matter.2 U.S. South and C&W filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 on July 12, 2002 and July 15, 2002, respectively, denying the allegations in Qwest's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 Qwest must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of U.S. South's and C&W's reports to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-787A1.html
  • Adopted: March 14, 2003 Released: March 17, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-827A1.html
  • 19, 2003 Released: March 20, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 4, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 Clarence Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Communications (``Cedar'') filed an informal complaint against defendant AT&T Corp. (``AT&T'') in the above-captioned matter. On July 19, 2002, AT&T filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in Cedar's informal complaint. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 Cedar is required to convert its informal complaint into a formal complaint within six months from the date of AT&T's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the April 4, 2002 filing date of the informal complaint for
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-836A1.html
  • Adopted: March 20, 2003 Released: March 21, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 31, 2002, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc. (``WorldCom'') filed an informal complaint against defendant Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (``Allegiance'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On July 15, 2002, Allegiance filed a report pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in WorldCom's Informal Complaint.4 Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,5 WorldCom must convert its Informal Complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the date of Allegiance's report to ensure that the formal complaint relates back to the May 31, 2002 filing date of the Informal Complaint for statute of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1809A1.html
  • 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716- 18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the period within which the informal complaint may be converted back to a formal complaint under sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717-18, shall end sixty (60) days after notice of termination or expiration of the automatic stay in Cable & Wireless' bankruptcy proceedings, unless extended by further order. 11. 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2972A1.html
  • Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the period within which the informal complaint may be converted to a formal complaint under sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717-18, shall end on March 14, 2005, unless extended by further order. 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 1.3, 1.716-18, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, 1.716-18, 1.720-36, and the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3265A1.html
  • ACS of Anchorage in the Formal Complaint be converted to an informal complaint. They further request that the filing date of the informal complaint be deemed May 1, 2003, which is the filing date of the Formal Complaint, and that the Commission extend the six-month period within which the informal complaint must be converted to a formal complaint under sections 1.717-18 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.717-18, to January 31, 2005 (the ``Conversion Date'').9 Moreover, the parties requested that either of the parties, or the Commission on its own motion, be permitted, upon a showing of good cause, to move for an extension of the Conversion Date. The parties also requested that either party be allowed to re- convert the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3394A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: October 26, 2004 Released: October 27, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI is required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints within six months from the date of the Defendants' reports (i.e., by October 29, 2004) to ensure that the formal complaints relates back to the May 12, 2004 filing date
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3871A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: December 9, 2004 Released: December 10, 2004 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI was required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the May 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-328A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: February 7, 2005 Released: February 8, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI was required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-48A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: January 10, 2005 Released: January 10, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter. On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules2 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,3 MCI was required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-668A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: March 15, 2005 Released: March 15, 2005 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 12, 2004, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission rules,1 MCI, Inc. (``MCI'') filed informal complaints against the local exchange carriers identified on Attachment A (``Defendants'') in the above-captioned matter.2 On April 29, 2004, Defendants filed reports pursuant to section 1.717 of the Commission's rules3 denying the allegations in MCI's informal complaints. Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,4 MCI was required to convert its informal complaints into formal complaints by October 29, 2004 to ensure that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, the formal complaints related back to the March 12, 2004 filing date of the informal complaints.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-14A1.html
  • (both holding that Network, and not the Debit Card Providers, are liable to APCC). To the extent that Network is referring to APCC's failure to sue Network until September 30, 2002, the two-year statute of limitations in section 415(b) of the Act adequately addresses any concerns arising from the timing of APCC's action. 47 C.F.R. S 1.716. 47 C.F.R. S 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S 1.47(h) (emphasis added). 47 C.F.R. S 1.47(d). See, e.g., March 2002 Informal Complaint; Damages Joint Statement at 6; APCC Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Complainants' Initial Brief on Issues Designated by the Commission's June 21, 2005 Letter Ruling, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed July 1, 2005) ("Complainants' Initial Brief on Service"), Attachment 10
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1366A1.html
  • File No. EB-07-MDIC-0026 Global Access, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0006 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0009838616 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 9, 2008 Released: June 10, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") finds that Global Access, Inc. ("Global Access" or "Defendant") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to an informal complaint served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Global Access is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2506A1.html
  • 28, 2008 By the Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission ("Bureau") and Alltel Communications, LLC d/b/a Alltel Wireless ("Alltel"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Alltel for possible violations of section 1.717 of the Commission's rules regarding Alltel's apparent failure to timely respond to informal consumer complaints. 2. The Bureau and Alltel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2702A1.html
  • FRN: 0007715915 ) ORDER Adopted: December 24, 2008 Released: December 24, 2008 By the Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission ("Bureau") and Startec Global Operating Company ("Startec"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Startec for possible violations of section 1.717 of the Commission's rules regarding Startec's apparent failure to timely respond to informal consumer complaints. 2. The Bureau and Startec have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2729A1.html
  • Adopted: December 19, 2008 Released: December 22, 2008 By the Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") and AT&T Inc ("AT&T"). The Consent Decree cancels a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") and terminates a subsequent investigation by the Bureau against AT&T for possible violations of section 1.717 of the Commission's rules regarding AT&T's failure to respond to informal consumer complaints. 2. The Bureau and AT&T have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve these matters. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-416A1.html
  • EB-07-TC-5001 Blue Casa Communications, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170014 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0009051731 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Blue Casa Communications, Inc. ("Blue Casa") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Blue Casa by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Blue Casa is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-417A1.html
  • File No. EB-08-TC-1068 Sprint Nextel Corporation ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170027 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0003769890 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Sprint Nextel by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Sprint Nextel is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-418A1.html
  • File No. EB-08-TC-1063 Amp'd Mobile, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170022 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0014731822 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. ("Amp'd Mobile") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Amp'd Mobile by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Amp'd Mobile is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-419A1.html
  • File No. EB-08-TC-1061 Link Systems, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170017 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004364451 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Link Systems, Inc. ("Link Systems") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to one (1) informal complaint served on Link Systems by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Link Systems is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-420A1.html
  • ) File No. EB-08-TC-1064 Cricket Communications, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170023 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004321139 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Cricket Communications, Inc. ("Cricket") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Cricket by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cricket is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-421A1.html
  • File No. EB-08-TC-1065 Cooperative Communications, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170021 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0003747409 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Cooperative Communications, Inc. ("Cooperative Communications") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to one (1) informal complaint served on Cooperative Communications by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cooperative Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-422A1.html
  • Distance, LLC ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170026 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0005003025 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Reduced Rate Long Distance, LLC ("Reduced Rate Long Distance") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two (2) informal complaints served on Reduced Rate Long Distance by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Reduced Rate Long Distance is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. II. BACKGROUND
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-423A1.html
  • EB-07-TC-5038 Total Call International, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170016 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0006807309 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Total Call International, Inc. ("Total Call") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to one (1) informal complaint served on Total Call by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Total Call is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-424A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) File No. EB-07-MDIC-0055 ) NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0001 ) FRN: 0017-4416-35 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") finds that West Star Telecommunications, LLC ("West Star" or "Defendant") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules and certain Commission letter orders by failing to respond to six informal complaints served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that West Star is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $24,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint rules
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-425A1.html
  • of File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 ) WorldOne Telecommunications NAL/Acct. No. 2008-0329-0004 ) Apparent Liability for Forfeiture FRN: 0013-1785-38 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: Feb. 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") finds that WorldOne Telecommunications, LLC ("WorldOne" or "Defendant") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to an informal complaint served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that WorldOne is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-426A1.html
  • Telecom Exchange ) Group, Inc. NAL/Acct. No. 2008-0329-0003 ) Apparent Liability for Forfeiture FRN: 0013-2184-09 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") finds that International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc. ("ITEG" or "Defendant") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to an informal complaint served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that ITEG is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-427A1.html
  • Matter of ) File No. EB-08-TC-1062 Alltel Wireless ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170024 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0003803483 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Alltel Wireless ("Alltel") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to four (4) informal complaints served on Alltel by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Alltel is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-428A1.html
  • Matter of ) File No. EB-08-TC-1066 AT&T, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832170025 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0007748817 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that AT&T, Inc. ("AT&T") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to twenty-four (24) informal complaints served on AT&T by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that AT&T is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $96,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint process,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-525A1.html
  • EB-06-MDIC-0084 ) Telefyne Inc. File No. EB-07-MDIC-0019 ) Apparent Liability for Forfeiture NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0002 ) FRN: 0006-7006-11 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 6, 2008 Released: March 7, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") finds that Telefyne Inc. ("Telefyne" or "Defendant") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to three informal complaints served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telefyne is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $12,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-526A1.html
  • ) File No. EB-07-MDIC-0027 Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 2008-3209-0005 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0010-4154-04 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 6, 2008 Released: March 7, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") finds that Global Network Communication West, Inc. ("GNCW" or "Defendant") apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two informal complaints served on Defendant by the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that GNCW is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's informal complaint rules provide a mechanism for complainants to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1710A1.html
  • EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In the Feb. 18, 2008 NAL, we found that Blue Casa apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission's rules by failing to respond to two informal complaints served on Blue Casa by the Consumers and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 4. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-487A1.html
  • attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) and Horizon Telecom, Inc. (Horizon) and Reduced Rate Long Distance, LLC (Reduced Rate Long Distance). The Consent Decree terminates the investigation initiated by the Bureau regarding Horizon's compliance with Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), and Sections 1.717, 64.1120, and 64.1130 of the Commission's rules, and finds that the forfeiture proposed in the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture should not be imposed. The Consent Decree also terminates the investigation initiated by the Bureau regarding Reduced Rate Long Distance's compliance with Section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, and finds that the forfeiture proposed in the Notice of Apparent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00252.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00252.txt
  • its previous pleadings and rejected in the Liability Order. Accordingly, we see no reason to reconsider our previous conclusion. As we stated in the Liability Order, the explicit language of section 1.718 unambiguously limits the relating-back provision to formal complaints ``filed within 6 months from the date of the carrier's report.'' We find no support for complainants' assertion that ``Section 1.717, . . ., clearly authorizes complainants to await disposition of their informal complaint by the Commission before filing a formal complaint.'' Nothing in section 1.717 or 1.718 can be read to restrict the explicit scope of section 1.718 in the way proffered by complainants. Indeed, complainants' argument disregards the fact that the Commission is not required to notify each complainant